Case 6018569/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Rose Forsythe v Kerrisia Harris — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018569/2025
- Decision date
- 11 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Rose Forsythe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented in the Midlands East Employment Tribunal on 19 May 2025. The judgment records that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time, and the Employment Judge decided that a determination could properly be made of the claim, or part of it, under rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal found that the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim succeeds. No further reasoning on the merits is set out in the extracted judgment text.
Remedy was not determined in this judgment. The tribunal directed that the remedy to which the claimant is entitled will be determined at a Remedy Hearing on 14 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was presented on 19 May 2025 and that the respondent failed to present a valid response on time. The Employment Judge decided under rule 22 that a determination could properly be made, and held that the unfair dismissal claim succeeds. Remedy was left to a Remedy Hearing on 14 October 2025. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 22 of the Rules of Procedure
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.