Case 1301726/2022 · Employment Tribunal
MS ROBYN CHERRY v Tyre Hill Equestrian Limited (a Company in Voluntary Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1301726/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Taylor Appearance
- Venue
- Birmingham via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
MS ROBYN CHERRY
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham via CVP on 30 September 2022 before Employment Judge Taylor, with the claimant appearing in person and the respondent absent and unrepresented. The tribunal proceeded under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because no ET3 response form had been filed, and the judge recorded that there was sufficient material to determine the claim.
The breach of contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal. The tribunal also held that the claim for failure to provide written particulars was not a stand-alone claim and therefore failed.
The judge further recorded that there had been no dismissal, that the claimant had less than two years' service, and that there was no claim for unfair dismissal. For those reasons, the claims for a compensatory award and for losses associated with unfair dismissal failed. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the breach of contract claim was dismissed on withdrawal. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Other | The claim for failure to provide written particulars was held not to be a stand-alone claim and therefore failed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.