Case 2401733/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Jenkins v Hays Social Care Ltd PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401733/2021
- Decision date
- 26 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Jenkins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Judge Brian Doyle on 20 August 2021, heard remotely by telephone conference. The claimant, Miss L Jenkins, was not in attendance and was not represented. The respondent, Hays Social Care Ltd, was represented by Ms R Mosozzil, in-house solicitor.
The judgment records that the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not qualifying to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. The tribunal also noted that she had been given an opportunity to respond to an earlier strike-out warning in relation to that complaint, but did not do so and did not attend the hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint on the ground that it had no reasonable prospect of success. No monetary award was made. The judgment was sent to the parties on 26 August 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that the claimant had less than two years' service and was therefore not qualifying to bring an unfair dismissal complaint. She had been given an opportunity to respond to an earlier strike-out warning, but did not respond or attend the preliminary hearing, and the unfair dismissal complaint was struck out on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no 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.