Case 1305710/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs AE Thomas v Almond Care Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 1305710/2024
- Decision date
- 24 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs AE Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a private CVP hearing on 21 February 2025, Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone considered claims by Mrs AE Thomas against Almond Care Ltd. The tribunal identified three claims: breach of contract, detriment for making a flexible working request, and detriment for alleging an infringement of a right under the Working Time Regulations 1998 or any other ground under s45A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996.
The tribunal dismissed all three claims. Its reason in each case was jurisdictional: it held that it did not have jurisdiction to consider the claims because they were out of time.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it, as it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Flexible working | Claim described as a detriment for making a flexible working request; dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it, as it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim described as a detriment for alleging the employer had infringed a right conferred by the Working Time Regulations 1998, or any other ground under s45A(1) Employment Rights Act 1996; dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider it, as it was out of time. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.