Affectionate Care Home Ltd

Case Summary

The claim was struck out as there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing the claim was brought in time.

The tribunal struck out the claim because there was no reasonable prospect of the claimant demonstrating that the claim was presented within the required time limit.

• •time limits for submitting claims

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Heard at Croydon (by video) On 17 November 2025 Claimant Ms Esther Gichanga Respondent Affectionate Care Home Limited Before Employment Judge Fowell Appearances Claimant In person Respondent Mr Ariz Asaria JUDGMENT ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE The claim is struck out on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the claimant showing that it was presented in time. REASONS Background 1. This hearing was listed to consider whether to strike out the claim on two alternative bases: the first because of the delay in submitting the claim form and the second because it has not been actively pursued. 2. Under rule 38 (1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, the Tribunal has power to strike out a claim where it has no reasonable prospects of success. 3. An application to strike out a claim is not decided on the basis of evidence presented on each side. It is limited to submissions only. The claimant’s case has to be taken at its highest. The question therefore is whether or not there is a reasonable prospect of her ultimately satisfying the Tribunal that the claim was brought in time. 4. Under rule 38 (1)(d) it can also be struck out where it has not been actively pursued. Before an order of that sort is made the Tribunal should be satisfied that a fair trial is no longer possible or that it would be a proportionate response. Time limits 5. This is a claim for unlawful deduction from wages and for failure to pay holiday pay. Ms Gichanga was working as a bank nurse. Her last shift took place on 14 January 2024 and her last pay slip was on 28 February 2024. 6. Subsequently, she went on a long course of training or study, unrelated to the respondent, and although her position is that she remained available for work and that the contract did not come to an end, that is not relevant to a claim for unlawful deduction from …