Case 6002827/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Fatma Hassan v Liberty Carers Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002827/2024
- Decision date
- 2 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Fatma Hassan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Fatma Hassan, attended the full merits hearing by videophone on 2 July 2025 before Employment Judge R S Drake. The respondent, Liberty Carers Ltd (In Liquidation), did not appear and had not filed an ET3, so it took no part in the proceedings. The tribunal recorded that the claimant's employment began on 10 September 2023 and ended on 30 April 2024.
The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim and the claim for a redundancy payment because, by the effective date of termination, the claimant had not completed two years' continuous service. On that basis, she could not meet the service requirement for those claims.
The breach of contract claim was also dismissed. The tribunal said a company search showed that the respondent was in compulsory liquidation, and neither leave of the court nor consent from the liquidators had been obtained. In those circumstances, the tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear the breach of contract claim against the company.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed because the claimant had not completed two years' continuous service by the effective date of termination. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed because the claimant had not completed two years' continuous service by the effective date of termination, so she could not succeed in a claim for a redundancy payment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Dismissed because the respondent was in compulsory liquidation and no leave of the court or consent from the liquidators had been obtained, so the tribunal lacked jurisdiction. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.