Ms R. Harris v The Juice Smith — 2023

Case reference: 2301170/2023
Decision date: 6 November 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge T.R.Smith Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms R. Harris

Respondent

The Juice Smith

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By a letter dated 03 August 2023, the Tribunal warned the claimant that her unfair dismissal complaint might be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and gave her an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing. The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.

The Tribunal therefore struck out the unfair dismissal complaint. The written reasons state that the claimant’s remaining claims remained live, and that she could pursue a complaint that her dismissal was discriminatory. The judgment does not identify the discriminatory characteristic relied on.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	By letter dated 03 August 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.