Case 1306689/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Calder v The Sandwell Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2020
- Case reference
- 1306689/2019
- Decision date
- 17 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Calder
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing in Birmingham on 16 January 2020, before Employment Judge Camp, the claimant did not appear and the respondent was represented by Mr M Grimes, solicitor. The judgment records that the claimant's claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
The tribunal also stated that, had the claimant's claim not been struck out, it would have been dismissed pursuant to rule 47. The written record does not identify the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted text.
The respondent's employer's contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. The judgment notes that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying substantive claim type; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37(1)(c) and (d) and would, had it not been struck out, have been dismissed under rule 47. The gov.uk listing category was Unfair Dismissal, but that is not stated in the judgment text itself. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The respondent's employer's contract claim was dismissed upon withdrawal under rule 52. | Withdrawn | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 47
- rule 52
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.