Case 2302133/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Fiona Oxborrow v My Homecare Kingston Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2302133/2021
- Decision date
- 23 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Fiona Oxborrow
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered a complaint of unfair dismissal brought by Miss Fiona Oxborrow against My Homecare Kingston Ltd. By letter dated 09/07/2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success because she had been employed for less than two years.
In an email dated 28/01/2022, the claimant accepted that she had been employed for less than two years. On that basis, the tribunal held that the unfair dismissal claim was invalid and struck it out.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim, described as a claim in respect of arrears of pay, remained listed for hearing on 11/04/2022. No remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations. The claimant accepted in an email dated 28/01/2022 that she had been employed for less than two years, so the unfair dismissal complaint was treated as invalid and as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.