Case 2219508/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P S Elliot v Department of Health and Social Care. Heard at London Central (by CVP) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2219508/2024
- Decision date
- 10 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shukla
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P S Elliot
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim by Ms P S Elliot against the Department of Health and Social Care was heard at London Central by CVP on 7 January 2025 before Employment Judge Shukla sitting alone. The judgment is a short jurisdictional decision rather than a merits determination.
The tribunal dismissed the claim because, when it was presented, the claimant did not have a certificate under s.18A(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996. On that basis, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claim, citing s.18A(1) and s.18A(8) of the same Act.
No substantive findings were made on the underlying allegations, and no monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Dismissed because, at the time it was presented, the claimant did not have a certificate under s.18A(4) of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996; the tribunal said it therefore had no jurisdiction under s.18A(1) and (8). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- s.18A(4) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.18A(1) Employment Tribunals Act 1996
- s.18A(8) Employment Tribunals 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.