Case 1805482/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Hughes v Reach4 solutions Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805482/2021
- Decision date
- 1 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Hughes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis reserved judgment dealt only with the respondent's applications to strike out the claimant's claim and for a deposit order. The respondent argued that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, or at least little reasonable prospects of success, because it said the claimant was very unlikely to recover any losses even if successful.
The tribunal held that the legal position on whether a claimant can bring an unfair dismissal claim even where no compensation is payable was not clear cut. It also noted that, if the claimant succeeded, it would have to consider losses at the hearing and in the future. Although the claimant had indicated that she was claiming compensation only, the tribunal said it was obliged to consider whether reinstatement or re-engagement would be appropriate under sections 112 to 115 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
On that basis, the tribunal was not satisfied that the claim had no prospects of success or little reasonable prospects of success. It therefore refused both the strike-out application and the application for a deposit order. The judgment did not determine the substantive unfair dismissal claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Reserved judgment on the respondent's applications to strike out the unfair dismissal claim and for a deposit order; both applications were refused. The tribunal did not decide the merits of the underlying claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospects of success
- little reasonable prospects of success
- sections 112-115 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.