Case 1307911/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Ridley v Midway Care Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1307911/2023
- Decision date
- 22 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kight Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Ridley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 22 April 2024 and no postponement had been sought. The tribunal made such enquiries as were practicable about the absence and considered the respondent's representations before proceeding.
On the dismissal claim, the claimant had confirmed in writing that her employment with Midway Care Group Limited ran from 3 February 2022 to 25 October 2023. The tribunal held that she did not have sufficient continuous service to present a claim for unfair dismissal and, in the absence of circumstances giving rise to automatic unfair dismissal, dismissed her constructive unfair dismissal claim for lack of jurisdiction.
On the wages issue, the tribunal found that the claim form did not identify what arrears of pay were said to be owed or the period over which they were claimed. It held that a valid claim for unpaid wages was not made out on the information available. In the alternative, both claims were dismissed under Rule 47 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because of the claimant's non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment states the claimant had employment from 3 February 2022 to 25 October 2023 and therefore did not have sufficient continuous service for an unfair dismissal claim. It describes the dismissal as a claim for 'constructive unfair dismissal' and dismisses it for lack of jurisdiction, noting there were no circumstances giving rise to automatic unfair dismissal. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal held that the claim form did not identify what arrears of pay were said to be owed or the period covered, so a valid unpaid wages claim was not made out from the material before it. The claim was also dismissed in the alternative under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.