Case 3200804/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Yarwood v Epping Forest Schools Partnership Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 3200804/2024
- Decision date
- 8 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Byrne Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Yarwood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 April 2025, the tribunal struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the tribunal took account of Rule 74(2).
The tribunal also considered Rule 75 and noted that the claimant had not had an adequate opportunity to make representations. For that reason, it said it was precluded, at that time, from considering whether to make a costs order.
The parties were reminded of their right to make an application for costs under Rule 75(1). The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims, only that the claim was struck out at the preliminary stage.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) because the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
- Rule 74(2)
- Rule 75
- Rule 75(1)
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.