Case 1302668/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Holtom v St Judes Residential Care Home Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1302668/2024
- Decision date
- 22 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Holtom
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 10 February 2025, later clarified by a letter dated 28 May 2025, the tribunal gave Mrs S Holtom an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal said it lacked jurisdiction to consider the claimant’s constructive unfair dismissal claim because the claim had been presented on 8 February 2024, before the claimant communicated her resignation to the respondent on 11 February 2024.
The tribunal therefore found that no dismissal had taken place, constructive or otherwise, at the date the claim was presented. It recorded that the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out proposal. On that basis, Employment Judge Edmonds struck out the claim on 22 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The tribunal treated the claim as one for constructive unfair dismissal and struck it out on jurisdiction grounds. It found the claim was presented on 8 February 2024, before the claimant communicated her resignation to the respondent on 11 February 2024, so no dismissal had taken place, constructive or otherwise, at the date of presentation. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.