Case 1300324/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Goode v Sammi Care Homes Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300324/2019
- Decision date
- 20 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Battisby Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Goode
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Battisby issued a rule 52 judgment dated 20 September 2019 recording that the proceedings were dismissed following a withdrawal of the claim by the claimant, Miss E Goode, against Sammi Care Homes Ltd. The judgment does not contain findings on the merits of the underlying complaints.
No remedy was awarded in the judgment, and the text does not set out any substantive liability determination or legal reasoning beyond the withdrawal dismissal.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The judgment itself does not set out merits findings for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The judgment itself does not set out merits findings for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The judgment itself does not set out merits findings for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that the proceedings were dismissed following withdrawal of the claim by the claimant. The judgment itself does not set out merits findings for this claim. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.