Case 1302994/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Cardin v Mr J Puaar t/a Domcare — 2021
- Case reference
- 1302994/2021
- Decision date
- 26 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Faulkner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Cardin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing at Midlands West on 26 November 2021 was before Employment Judge Faulkner sitting alone. The tribunal corrected the respondent name to Mr J Puaar trading as Domcare.
The judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement. The hearing was adjourned and the proceedings were stayed for 27 days to allow those terms to be put into effect.
The tribunal stated that the claim would stand dismissed on 23 December 2021 unless, before then, either party wrote to the tribunal asking for the matter to be put back into the lists for hearing. No substantive merits findings or monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement. The hearing was adjourned and the proceedings stayed for 27 days to allow those terms to be put into effect, with the claim to stand dismissed on 23 December 2021 unless either party asked for relisting. | Settled | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that the parties had agreed terms of settlement. The hearing was adjourned and the proceedings stayed for 27 days to allow those terms to be put into effect, with the claim to stand dismissed on 23 December 2021 unless either party asked for relisting. | Settled | — | — |
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.