Case 1400673/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Smith v NG Bailey Ltd RECORD OF A PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400673/2024
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Appearances
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Livesey, sitting at Bristol on a preliminary hearing, considered the respondent's strike-out applications confined to two claims: flexible working under section 80H of the Employment Rights Act and breach of contract relating to notice under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994. The Claimant, in person, declined to make oral submissions and relied on her earlier skeleton argument and bundle pages.
On the notice pay claim, the judge found that the Claimant had accepted in her Particulars of Claim that the correct one-week notice payment of £551 had been made and there was no countering argument. On the flexible working claim, the application of 7 September 2023 was made within the statutory three-month response period that did not expire before the Claimant's dismissal on 18 October 2023.
Both claims were held to have no reasonable prospects of success and were dismissed under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The remaining claims continue under a separate Case Management Order. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flexible working | Dismissed under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 as having no reasonable prospects of success. Flexible working application made on 7 September 2023; statutory three-month response period had not lapsed by the dismissal date (18 October 2023 or 30 November 2023 even on the claimant's case). | Struck out | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Breach of contract / notice pay claim under the Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994; dismissed under rule 38 with no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant accepted in her Particulars of Claim that the correct one-week notice (PILON of £551) had been paid. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Twist DX v Armes UKEAT/0030/20/JOJ
- HM Prison Service v Dolby [2003] IRLR 694
- Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd UKEAT/0119/18
- Eastman v Tesco Stores [2012] All ER (D) 264
- Kwele-Siakam v Co-Operative Group Ltd EAT 0039/17
- Sharma v New College Nottingham UKEAT/0287/11/LA
- Spring v First Capital East Ltd UKEAT/0567/11/LA
- Ahir v British Airways [2017] EWCA Civ 1392
- section 80G(1B)(a) Employment Rights Act 1996
- Extension of Jurisdiction Order 1994
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.