Case 1400141/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Anna Howard v Home Instead — 2026
- Case reference
- 1400141/2025
- Decision date
- 11 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Anna Howard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Anna Howard's claim against Home Instead was struck out. The gov.uk listing categories identify the case as involving Public Interest Disclosure and Unfair Dismissal, but the judgment text does not separately describe the causes of action or any underlying employment facts.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant warning that it was considering striking out the claim because, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, it appeared that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply.
Employment Judge Smail was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike out would accord with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claimant's claims were therefore struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and for not having been actively pursued. The judgment records no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies Unfair Dismissal, but the judgment text itself does not particularise the claim type; it records that the claimant's claim or claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing category identifies Public Interest Disclosure, but the judgment text itself does not particularise the claim type; it records that the claimant's claim or claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.