Case 1811371/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Ashton Moore v Miss Nawal Taha t/a Inspire UK Care — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811371/2018
- Decision date
- 21 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Ashton Moore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Sheffield on 28 May 2019, Employment Judge Brain allowed the respondent, Nawal Taha trading as Inspire UK Care, to present its notice of appearance out of time and treated the application dated 24 May 2019 as the respondent's notice of appearance. The decision records that the claimant, Miss Ashton Moore, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by Peninsula Business Services Ltd.
The tribunal also ordered the respondent to pay the claimant £74.50 under Rule 76(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, described as reimbursement of the necessary unreasonably incurred expenses of the claimant's attendance at the hearing. The order required payment on or before 5 June 2019. The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal granted the respondent permission to present its notice of appearance out of time and made an order under Rule 76(1)(c) for reimbursement of the claimant's necessary expenses of attending the hearing. This was a procedural/application determination rather than a substantive employment claim. | Upheld | — | £75 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £75
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 76(1)(c) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.