Case 3306150/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sandra Samadi v Care Expertise Group Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3306150/2024
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
- Venue
- Cambridge via video
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sandra Samadi
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge MJ Smith at Cambridge by video on 15 September 2025. The claimant, Ms Sandra Samadi, appeared in person and the respondent, Care Expertise Group Limited, was represented by Mr Alex Hill, solicitor.
The tribunal dealt only with the respondent's application to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. That application was refused. The judgment does not record any substantive finding on the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal claim.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It also records that written reasons will not be provided unless requested at the hearing or by written request within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | At a preliminary hearing, the respondent's application to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a) on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success was refused. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(a)
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.