Case 2300757/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Rosenow v Achieving for Children — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300757/2021
- Decision date
- 18 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Braganza KC
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Rosenow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt an open preliminary hearing on 18 January 2023 before Employment Judge Braganza KC, the tribunal rejected Mrs Rosenow's claim under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claim form did not give the claimant's address. The judgment records that the hearing was held in public by CVP and that the claimant represented herself, while the respondent was represented by an in-house caseworker.
The tribunal did not reach the substantive merits of any underlying complaint. The written judgment states that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal rejected the claim at an open preliminary hearing under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claim form did not give the claimant's address. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 10(1)(b) of 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.