Case 1302116/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Holmes and v Allied Healthcare Group Limited; and and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1302116/2019
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs E Holmes and
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim form on 24 April 2019 alleging unfair dismissal, redundancy pay, notice pay, holiday pay, and failure to inform and consult on a TUPE transfer. After the respondent's response was filed, the Tribunal joined the second respondent to the proceedings. The case was listed for hearing on 30 June 2022 and the parties were sent case management orders.
No party attended the hearing on 30 June 2022. The clerk telephoned the parties. The first respondent's representative was no longer with the business, and the claimant said she did not want to go ahead with her claim. She was asked to confirm that in writing, but the Tribunal had no record of any communication withdrawing or otherwise confirming that position.
Employment Judge Choudry struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records no findings on the merits of any of the pleaded claims and no monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no merits were determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no merits were determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim form described this head as notice pay. It was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no merits were determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no merits were determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The claim form described this head as failure to inform and consult on a TUPE transfer. It was struck out under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no merits were determined. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.