Case 2302735/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Woodward v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302735/2022
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Armstrong Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Woodward
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London South Employment Tribunal by CVP on 2 October 2023 before Employment Judge Armstrong. Miss R Woodward appeared in person and the respondent, Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust, was represented by Miss Bell, counsel.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's unfair dismissal claim because it was not presented within the statutory time limits. The tribunal also dismissed the claim described as unauthorised deductions / failure to pay holiday on the same basis, namely that it was not presented within the statutory time limits.
The judgment records no monetary remedy, no award, and no finding on any discrimination complaint.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claim was not presented within the statutory time limits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim for unauthorised deductions / failure to pay holiday and dismisses it because it was not presented within the statutory time limits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment describes this as a claim for unauthorised deductions / failure to pay holiday and dismisses it because it was not presented within the statutory time limits. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.