Case 6000295/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Christine Andrews v South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust — 2026
- Case reference
- 6000295/2025
- Decision date
- 5 February 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Yardley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Christine Andrews
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 February 2026 before Employment Judge Yardley in London South by video, the Tribunal dealt with complaints brought by Ms Christine Andrews against South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust. The judgment records that the Claimant’s holiday pay complaint arising prior to termination was struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The Tribunal also recorded that the Claimant’s age discrimination complaint was dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. A separate complaint of breach of contract, said to relate to the Claimant’s withdrawal from the Lambeth Hospital research project, was likewise dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant.
The judgment states that the Claimant’s remaining claims would proceed to a final hearing as listed. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay complaint arising prior to termination. Struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 on the basis that it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Claim dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | Complaint in relation to the Claimant’s withdrawal from the Lambeth Hospital research project. Dismissed upon withdrawal by the Claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.