Case 2304114/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Foster v Sovereign Courts Residents Association Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304114/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Routley Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Foster
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the London South hearing on 16 January 2024, before Employment Judge Routley and in the respondent's absence, the tribunal held that Ms D Foster did not have sufficient continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. The tribunal therefore said it had no jurisdiction to hear that claim.
Ms Foster succeeded in her breach of contract claim because the tribunal found she had not been paid sufficient notice pay. The tribunal awarded £174.45 on that claim.
The tribunal also found that Ms Foster's contract of employment did not comply with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. It awarded four weeks' wages, assessed at £232.60, bringing the total monetary award to £407.05.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant did not have sufficient continuous service to bring an unfair dismissal claim and therefore had no jurisdiction to hear it. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The tribunal found the claimant had not been paid sufficient notice pay. | Upheld | — | £174 |
| Other | The tribunal found the claimant's contract of employment did not comply with section 1 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and awarded four weeks' wages. | Upheld | — | £233 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £407
- across all upheld claims
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.