Case 6004081/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Nicholls v Stow Residential Limited and 4 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004081/2024
- Decision date
- 6 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gordon Walker
Parties
6 namedClaimant
Miss A Nicholls
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024. The claimant did not object to the proposed strike out set out in the order of 6 February 2025.
The strike out warning referred to the unfair dismissal claim lacking the two years' service required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. It also referred to non-compliance with tribunal orders dated 6 August 2024, failure to attend the 6 February 2025 hearing, apparent failure actively to pursue the claim, non-compliance with orders dated 6 February 2025, and failure to attend the 30 April 2025 hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out under rule 38. The strike out warning stated that the claimant did not have two years' service as required by section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment refers to all claims being struck out but does not give separate findings on the age discrimination claim. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment refers to all claims being struck out but does not give separate findings on the sex discrimination claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
- section 108 Employment Rights Act 1996
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.