Ashton Meadows Ltd

Case Summary

Employment Judge Ramsden heard an application for interim relief following the claimant's summary dismissal after five days of employment as a Care Assistant. The claimant claims wrongful dismissal, unlawful wage deductions, and automatic unfair dismissal for protected disclosure (whistleblowing), but her application for interim relief does not succeed.

The document provided is a judgment on a preliminary issue (interim relief application) only and does not contain the tribunal's detailed reasoning for rejecting the application. The judgment text is incomplete.

• •Whether claimant has 'pretty good' chance of succeeding on interim relief application
• •Whether claimant was automatically unfairly dismissed for making protected disclosure
• •Whether claimant was owed notice pay for wrongful dismissal
• •Whether claimant was entitled to payment for 36 hours unpaid work

1 of 10 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Heard at: London South On: 26 March 2026, 10 am Claimant: Ms A Johnson Respondent: Ashton Meadows Limited Before: Employment Judge Ramsden Representation: Claimant In person Respondent Mrs K Ragunathan JUDGMENT ON A PRELIMINARY ISSUE 1. By consent the Respondent’s name is amended to Ashton Meadows Limited. 2. The Claimant’s application for interim relief does not succeed. REASONS 3. These written reasons are provided at the request of both parties following oral reasons given earlier today. Background 4. The Claimant was employed by the Respondent, which operates a care home, as a Care Assistant for five days from 26 January 2026 until she was summarily dismissed on 30 January 2026. 5. The Claimant contacted ACAS, which issued an Early Conciliation certificate on the same day – 4 February 2026. 2 of 10 6. The Claimant presented a Claim Form to the Tribunal on the same date (4 February 2026). 7. On 5 February 2026 the Respondent was notified of the Claimant’s Claim, and told that if it wished to defend that Claim it needed to submit its Response to the Tribunal by 5 March 2026. No Response was received by that time. 8. The Respondent submitted a Response Form and Grounds of Resistance on 9 March 2026, with no application for an extension of time, or any explanation for the late presentation. The application 9. The Claim comprises the following legal complaints: a) That the Claimant was wrongfully dismissed, i.e., that she is owed notice pay (which the Claimant says should have been one day’s wages); b) That the Respondent made unauthorised deductions from her wages, contrary to section 13 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (the 1996 Act) in respect of 36 hours’ work which the Claimant performed and which she says she was not paid for; and c) That she was automatically unfairly dismissed for the sole or principal reason that she had made a protected disclosu…