Case 2207965/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Eneli v Midshires Care Ltd T/a Helping Hands Home Care — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207965/2023
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead
- Venue
- in public in the Central London Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Eneli
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Woodhead, sitting alone on 10 November 2023, first determined the effective date of termination because the parties disagreed whether the claimant was dismissed on 11 January 2023 or only when she saw the email and letter on 12 January 2023. The tribunal found that Ms I Eneli was verbally and unequivocally dismissed with immediate effect at the meeting on 11 January 2023, relying on the contract wording about payment in lieu of notice, the email subject line and attached dismissal letter, the meeting notes, the HR leaver documents, and the evidence that arrangements for collection of her work items were made on 11 January 2023. The tribunal rejected the claimant’s account that she only learnt of dismissal on 12 January 2023.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed because the complaint was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Victimisation | Dismissed because the complaint was presented out of time and it was not just and equitable to extend time; no merits determination was made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- s.123 Equality Act 2010
- Adedeji v University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust
- British Coal Corporation v Keeble factors
- Bexley Community Centre (t/a Leisure Link) v Robertson
- Kumari v Greater Manchester Mental Health Foundation Trust
- Owen v Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd
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.