Case 6002493/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Michelle Holmes v Shoezone — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002493/2024
- Decision date
- 31 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Michelle Holmes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 17 July 2024, the tribunal gave Michelle Holmes an opportunity to make representations on why the complaints of negligence and falsifying documents should not be struck out. The tribunal said the complaints appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success and that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with them.
The claimant did not make sufficient representations and did not request a hearing. On 31 July 2024, Employment Judge McTigue struck out both complaints.
The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claims were still listed for hearing on 8 September 2024. No monetary award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Complaint of negligence. The tribunal struck it out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the 17 July 2024 letter. The reasons given were that it had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Complaint of falsifying documents. The tribunal struck it out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the 17 July 2024 letter. The reasons given were that it had no reasonable prospect of success and that the Employment Tribunal had no jurisdiction to deal with it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- reasonable prospect of success
- no jurisdiction
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.