Case 3207510/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Sendula v Penrose Homes Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3207510/2021
- Decision date
- 4 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Sendula
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing at the East London Hearing Centre by video link on 2 April 2025, Employment Judge S Shore recorded that none of Ms A Sendula's claims were struck out for non-compliance with the ET order to attend the DRA hearing on 28 March 2025. The tribunal then held that Ms Sendula was not an employee of Penrose Homes Limited at any time, so the unfair dismissal claim was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
The tribunal further found that, if she had been an employee, she would not have had two years' continuous employment. It held that none of the claims advanced had reasonable prospects of success and dismissed the direct sex discrimination claim, the harassment claim related to sex, and the unlawful deduction from wages claim. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the tribunal found that Ms A Sendula was not an employee of Penrose Homes Limited at any time. The tribunal also said that if she had been an employee she would not have had two years' continuous employment. The written record is internally inconsistent: paragraph 1 says none of the claims were struck out for non-compliance, while paragraph 4 says this claim would have been dismissed for no reasonable prospects of success if it had not already been struck out under paragraph 1. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed as a claim of harassment related to the protected characteristic of sex because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed because the tribunal found it had no reasonable prospects of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- reasonable prospects 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.