Case 1401873/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Helen Pearce v Charlotte Hout — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401873/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Helen Pearce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy email dated 30 August 2022, the tribunal gave the Respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the Employer's Contract Claim should not be struck out. The tribunal identified two jurisdictional difficulties: the Claimant had not alleged that she was bringing a breach of contract claim, and the Respondent had not ticked box 7 in the response form to bring an employer's counterclaim under the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994.
The Respondent did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, in response to that invitation. The tribunal therefore struck out the Employer's Contract Claim. The judgment also records that the claim remained listed for hearing on 23 December 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the Respondent's Employer's Contract Claim after an email dated 30 August 2022 invited representations or a request for hearing. It found there was no apparent jurisdiction because the Claimant had not alleged a breach of contract claim and the Respondent had not ticked box 7 in the response form to bring an employer's counterclaim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England & Wales) Order 1994, articles 3 and 4
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.