Case 3311247/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Saini v Healthcare Homes Group Limited, and 3 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311247/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Murdoch Representation
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Ms Saini
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place at Watford on 3 September 2025 before Employment Judge Murdoch. The tribunal dealt with preliminary matters concerning the claimant's complaints of automatic unfair dismissal and detriment for making protected disclosures.
It struck out those complaints against the second, third and fourth Respondents on the basis that they were out of time and had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment does not record a substantive determination of the merits of those complaints against those Respondents.
For the avoidance of doubt, the tribunal recorded that the same complaints against the first Respondent, Healthcare Homes Group Limited, remained intact. The case name was amended to Ms Saini v Healthcare Homes Group Limited and a separate case management order was issued.
The written record notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal complaint struck out against the second, third and fourth Respondents because it was out of time and had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the complaint against the first Respondent remained intact. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Detriment for making protected disclosures was struck out against the second, third and fourth Respondents because it was out of time and had no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment records that the complaint against the first Respondent remained intact. | Struck out | — | — |
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.