Case 3200019/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Natalie Hogg v Wilson James Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200019/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Rao Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Natalie Hogg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a complaint of unfair dismissal against Wilson James Limited. The hearing took place by Cloud Video Platform at East London Hearing Centre on 18 and 19 March 2025 before Employment Judge A Rao.
The tribunal held that the complaint of unfair dismissal pursuant to sections 94 and 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was not well-founded and dismissed it. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the specified time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records the complaint as unfair dismissal pursuant to sections 94 and 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and states it was not well-founded and dismissed. Oral reasons were given, but no written reasons are included in the supplied text. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- sections 94 and 95(1)(c) of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.