Case 2302757/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Ms S Walters v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust — 2025

Case reference: 2302757/2024
Decision date: 18 November 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Ramsden Representation
Venue: London South

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms S Walters

Respondent

Croydon Health Services NHS Trust

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

At a preliminary issue hearing on 11 November 2025, Employment Judge Ramsden held that Ms S Walters had no reasonable prospect of persuading the tribunal that it had jurisdiction to determine her claim because she had not complied with the ACAS Early Conciliation requirements in section 18A of the Employment Tribunals Act 1996 before presenting the claim on 8 March 2024. The claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

The written record does not set out the substantive allegations or reach the merits of any underlying claim. The judgment is confined to jurisdiction and procedure, and no compensation or other substantive remedy was awarded.

The tribunal noted that the respondent indicated an intention to apply for costs. Any such application was directed to be made within 14 days of the date of the judgment, by way of variation to Rule 75(1) pursuant to Rule 5(7) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Preliminary issue only. The written judgment does not identify the substantive cause or causes of action; it struck out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the ACAS Early Conciliation requirements before presenting the claim on 8 March 2024.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

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.

Published on gov.uk under the .

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.