Case 6020761/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Amira Moses v London College of Communication — 2026
- Case reference
- 6020761/2024
- Decision date
- 23 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Neill REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Amira Moses
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Ms Amira Moses, did not attend the hearing at London South by CVP on 23 March 2026. The respondent, London College of Communication, was represented by Mr Harris, counsel.
Employment Judge O'Neill struck out all of the claims under Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 as having no reasonable prospect of success. The judgment states that the claimant failed to establish that she had been an employee, worker, or had any other status giving rise to a claim that the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that all claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant failed to establish employee, worker, or other status giving the Tribunal jurisdiction. The short judgment does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant failed to establish employee, worker, or other status giving the Tribunal jurisdiction. The short judgment does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that all claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant failed to establish employee, worker, or other status giving the Tribunal jurisdiction. The short judgment does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant failed to establish employee, worker, or other status giving the Tribunal jurisdiction. The short judgment does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that all claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(a) because the claimant failed to establish employee, worker, or other status giving the Tribunal jurisdiction. The short judgment does not separately discuss this claim. | Struck out |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.