Case 2410877/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Gibbard v First Choice Homes Oldham Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2410877/2019
- Decision date
- 6 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Gibbard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 5 December 2019, the tribunal gave Miss Gibbard an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No merits findings or monetary award are recorded in the judgment. The reasons are signed by Employment Judge Dunlop and the judgment was sent to the parties on 6 February 2020.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text does not separately list the heads of claim; this claim type follows the gov.uk listing category supplied in Layer 1. The tribunal struck out the claim for lack of reasonable prospect of success after the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not separately list the heads of claim; this claim type follows the gov.uk listing category supplied in Layer 1. The tribunal struck out the claim for lack of reasonable prospect of success after the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.