Case 3302606/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Phillips v Coniston House — 2025
- Case reference
- 3302606/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Phillips
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr S Phillips's claim against Coniston House. It did so under rule 37 after sending a letter dated 22 October 2024 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The stated basis for strike out was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had less than two years' qualifying service to bring a claim for unfair dismissal. The claimant did not make written representations and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Graham ordered that the claim be struck out. The judgment records no monetary award and no further substantive findings on liability.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity, by letter dated 22 October 2024, to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because he had less than two years' qualifying service to bring an unfair dismissal claim. No representations were made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- less than two years’ qualifying service
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.