Case 2307473/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Elisabeth Taurel v Lewisham College — 2024
- Case reference
- 2307473/2023
- Decision date
- 21 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Elisabeth Taurel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal. By a letter dated 26 March 2024, the tribunal gave Elisabeth Taurel an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because she did not appear entitled to bring such a claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996, meaning it had no reasonable prospects of success.
The claimant did not make any written representations and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Abbott struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37. The judgment states that the claimant's remaining claims were still listed for a preliminary hearing on 11 December 2024 and a final hearing on 22 to 25 September 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal concluded the claimant did not appear entitled to bring an unfair dismissal claim under section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996 and had no reasonable prospects of success. The claimant did not make representations or request a hearing after the 26 March 2024 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
- no reasonable prospects 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.