Case 3302922/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M F Teixeira Goncalves v Housekeeping Angels Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3302922/2021
- Decision date
- 1 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M F Teixeira Goncalves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the respondent's part of the response relating to the unfair dismissal and wrongful dismissal claims because the respondent had been ordered to pay a £100 deposit following a preliminary hearing on 24 January 2022 and had failed to do so. The judgment states that those claims succeed as a result of the strike-out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment does not determine remedy. It states that remedy will be assessed on 15 July 2022. It also records that the hearing fixed for that date would proceed because the respondent still defended the amount of compensation claimed and there were defended claims for holiday pay and pension contributions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent's part of the response was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the £100 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing on 24 January 2022 was not paid. | Upheld | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The respondent's part of the response was struck out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the £100 deposit ordered after the preliminary hearing on 24 January 2022 was not paid. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.