Case 2306836/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T. E. Efuribe v Aboutcare Hastings Ltd T/A Everycare Hastings — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306836/2023
- Decision date
- 3 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Representation
- Venue
- London South ET
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T. E. Efuribe
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 3 June 2024 at London South Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge G. King struck out two claims brought by Miss T. E. Efuribe against Aboutcare Hastings Ltd T/A Everycare Hastings. The first was an automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996. The second was a claim for unpaid holiday pay.
For both claims, the tribunal found that there was no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment also records that the claimant's conduct during the hearing was unreasonable and vexatious. On that basis, the tribunal struck out both claims under Rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (e).
No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment, and the decision contains no split of compensation between claims because both claims were removed at the strike-out stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim under s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996. The tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success and noted the claimant's conduct during the hearing was unreasonable and vexatious. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim for unpaid holiday pay. The tribunal found it had no reasonable prospect of success and noted the claimant's conduct during the hearing was unreasonable and vexatious. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- s.100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 37(1)(a), (b) and (e)
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.