Case 2303099/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Head v Humidity Response Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303099/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Head
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 April 2024, sitting at London South by video, Employment Judge Evans dealt with the respondent's preliminary applications in Mrs Head's unfair dismissal case against Humidity Response Limited. The respondent asked the tribunal to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success, and also sought a deposit order under Rule 39(1) on the basis that the complaint had little reasonable prospect of success.
Both applications were refused. The judgment records only the disposal of those applications and does not decide the underlying unfair dismissal claim on its merits. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in time by a party.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's applications to strike out the unfair dismissal complaint under Rule 37(1)(a) and for a deposit order under Rule 39(1) were both refused. The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) no reasonable prospect of success
- Rule 39(1) little 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.