Case 1602145/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Miss K Cato v Ooh La La Hair and Beauty Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 1602145/2023
Decision date: 26 January 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Representation Claimant
Venue: Cardiff

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss K Cato

Respondent

Ooh La La Hair and Beauty Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

Miss K Cato's unfair dismissal claim against Ooh La La Hair and Beauty Ltd was struck out by Employment Judge DS McLeese under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a). The tribunal found that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success.

The judgment records that no response was received to a prior strike-out warning dated 12 November 2023. It also notes that, at the hearing on remedy in relation to the unlawful deduction from wages claim, the Claimant accepted that the unfair dismissal claim could not be pursued.

No monetary award is recorded in this judgment. The decision is a short written record following oral reasons, and it does not set out any further findings on the unlawful deduction from wages claim.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) for having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that no response was received to a prior strike-out warning dated 12 November 2023 and that the Claimant accepted at the hearing that the unfair dismissal claim could not be pursued.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.