Case 2500331/2025 · Employment Tribunal

Ms J Phillips v Perfect Care Limited HELD AT: Newcastle (in public via CVP) — 2025

Case reference: 2500331/2025
Decision date: 13 August 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Anderson REPRESENTATION

Indexed: 17 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms J Phillips

Respondent

Perfect Care Limited HELD AT: Newcastle (in public via CVP)

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal recorded that the claimant brought an unfair dismissal claim after being dismissed for alleged gross misconduct, but the hearing did not proceed on the merits. The claimant had not provided a witness statement, the ET1 lacked basic particulars, and the claimant and her representative did not return to the CVP hearing after the morning adjournment.

The tribunal found that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably by or on behalf of the claimant, that there had been non-compliance with the tribunal order about witness statements, and that it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing within the listed hearing window. It considered alternatives to strike out, including postponement, but decided that postponement would be unduly prejudicial to the respondent and its witness.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(b), Rule 38(1)(c) and Rule 38(1)(e); the tribunal did not determine the merits.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

5 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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 PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.