Mrs S Shahzad v London Borough of Newham — 2026

The tribunal struck out Mrs Shahzad's only claim, unfair dismissal, under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. Taking her case at its highest, it found no reasonable prospect that she could show that her dismissal fell outside the band or range of reasonable responses.

Mrs Shahzad was dismissed after three incidents concerning keys and the safety and security of residents. She had recently received a live final written warning following an earlier incident in which her daughter accessed residents' premises to use facilities. Mrs Shahzad had not appealed that warning. She accepted responsibility for failing to return the Hamara Ghar and Centenary House keys, although she described one incident as a genuine mistake. She disputed giving an office key to a cleaner.

The tribunal found no reasonable prospect of showing that the respondent had failed to consider Mrs Shahzad's health or long service. The dismissal letter recorded her health conditions and memory loss as mitigating circumstances, but treated them as insufficient to outweigh the seriousness of the key incidents. The tribunal said dismissal was towards the harsher end of the range of reasonable responses, but there was no reasonable prospect of showing that it fell outside that range. Even if the disputed cleaner allegation were set aside, the live final written warning and the two other key incidents led to the same conclusion. The judgment records no monetary award.