Case 3303295/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J A McKenna v POhWER Advocacy Service — 2026
- Case reference
- 3303295/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J A McKenna
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that the case was heard in public at Reading on 26 March 2026 before Employment Judge George. Miss J A McKenna represented herself and the respondent, POhWER Advocacy Service, was represented by Mr J Walters, counsel.
The only operative decision recorded is that the application for the claim to be struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 was dismissed. The judgment does not determine the underlying age discrimination, disability discrimination, public interest disclosure, sex discrimination, or unlawful deduction from wages allegations listed for the case.
No remedy was awarded or assessed in this judgment. The judgment states that oral summary reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment determined an application for the claim to be struck out under rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The application was dismissed. The substantive claims identified in the listing were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.