Case 6003686/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Bajraktari v Hangleton Dental Practice Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6003686/2025
- Decision date
- 29 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Bajraktari
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a video hearing on 25 June 2026, Employment Judge Abbott refused Miss T Bajraktari's application to strike out Hangleton Dental Practice Limited's response. The judgment did not determine the underlying breach of contract, wages or working-time claims, and summary reasons were given orally.
The respondent was ordered to pay preparation time relating to the hearing, including time incurred by the claimant and her advisers in making the strike-out application. No amount was fixed; if the parties do not agree it, the tribunal will assess it under Rule 77 on their written submissions.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's application to strike out the response was refused. This judgment did not adjudicate the underlying substantive claims. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | A preparation time order was made against the respondent, but the amount was not determined in this judgment. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 77
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.