Case 6043834/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Virlinger Simmons v Bromley GP Alliance — 2026
- Case reference
- 6043834/2025
- Decision date
- 29 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Virlinger Simmons
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered Mrs Simmons' application for interim relief following claims presented on 27 November 2025 and 1 December 2025. The claimant confirmed that she was still in her probation period and had not yet been dismissed when those claims were presented; her dismissal took place on 18 December 2025.
Employment Judge Fowell held that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to consider the interim relief application because a valid unfair dismissal complaint required the dismissal, or notice of dismissal where applicable, to have already occurred. The second claim did not alter the position because it too was presented before dismissal or notice.
The judgment did not make a final order striking out the unfair dismissal complaints, because the hearing had been listed only for interim relief. The Tribunal noted that the respondent might raise jurisdiction arguments and explained that Mrs Simmons could present a fresh unfair dismissal complaint after dismissal while still in time.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismissed the application for interim relief. It did not finally determine the underlying unfair dismissal complaints, which the Tribunal described as premature and potentially vulnerable to jurisdiction arguments. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- section 128 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- rules 28 or 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Reynolds v Abel Estate Agent Ltd and ors 2025 EWCA Civ 1357
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.