Home Instead

Case Summary

The claimant's claim against Home Instead was struck out by the tribunal under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The tribunal determined that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond to the tribunal's warning letter dated 1 September 2026 and did not provide cause or request a hearing to challenge the strike-out.

The claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued, and the claimant failed to show cause why it should not be struck out after being given an opportunity to respond to the tribunal's warning letter.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Anna Howard Respondent: Home Instead JUDGMENT The claim is struck out. REASONS 1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 1 September 2026 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the claim. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that  The claim had no reasonable prospect of success.  The claim had not been actively pursued. 2. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimant has not replied. 3. I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claim. Having failed to show cause why the claims should not be struck out, the Claimant’s claims are hereby struck out as having no reasonable prospects of success and for having not been actively pursued 4. The claim is therefore struck out. Approved by: Employment Judge Smail Date: 11 May 2026 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 14 May 2026 Jade Lobb FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE