Case 2402880/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Hopley v White Falcon 11 Ltd, trading as Falcon Care — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402880/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Hopley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard at Manchester by CVP on 25 September 2023 before Employment Judge McDonald sitting alone. The judgment records that claim number 2402917/2023 was a duplicate of claim number 2402880/2023 and was dismissed as an abuse of process.
The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was dismissed because she did not have sufficient length of service to bring such a claim. No separate remedy was awarded in respect of that claim.
The remaining claims were not determined on their merits. The notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal, and the claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay for shifts worked was also dismissed on withdrawal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim number 2402917/2023 was dismissed as a duplicate of claim number 2402880/2023 and an abuse of process. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant did not have sufficient length of service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant's notice pay claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim that the respondent made unauthorised deductions from wages by failing to pay for shifts worked was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.