Case 3302515/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T O’Slatara v St Luke’s Hospice (harrow & Brent) Limited & Prabhakar Sundaresan — 2021
- Case reference
- 3302515/2020
- Decision date
- 16 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Skehan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T O’Slatara
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy judgment dated 5 December 2020, Employment Judge Skehan struck out the complaint against the second respondent, Prabhakar Sundaresan. The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 7 October 2020 and given her an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why that complaint should not be struck out for having no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the complaint against Mr Sundaresan was struck out. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim was left listed for hearing on 16 February 2021.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The complaint against the 2nd Respondent, Prabhakar Sundaresan, was struck out after the Tribunal gave notice on 7 October 2020 that it appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations and did not 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.