Case 6010035/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Rebecca Murphy v SD14 Ltd, trading as Cedars – In Liquidation — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010035/2025
- Decision date
- 12 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge MJ Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Rebecca Murphy
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 May 2026, the Tribunal considered whether Ms Rebecca Murphy's complaints of ordinary unfair dismissal and failure to pay a redundancy payment should be struck out. The Tribunal had previously warned the claimant that these complaints appeared to have no reasonable prospect of success and had given her an opportunity to respond or request a hearing.
Employment Judge MJ Smith found that the grounds for striking out the complaints under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 applied because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service with SD14 Ltd, trading as Cedars. The Tribunal also found that striking out those complaints accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. Both complaints were struck out; the remainder of the claim, including the discrimination claim referred to by the claimant, was expressly unaffected by the judgment. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The ordinary unfair dismissal complaint was struck out under Rule 38 because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The complaint of failure to pay a redundancy payment was struck out under Rule 38 because the claimant did not have two years' continuous service with the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (no reasonable prospect of success)
- overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.