Case 1400572/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Tina Sedgman v Whitbread Group plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400572/2024
- Decision date
- 14 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Tina Sedgman
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the private preliminary hearing by CVP audio on 12 September 2024 and did not provide an explanation for her non-attendance. The Tribunal recorded that she had made no contact with the Tribunal or the respondent about her claims since presenting them on 17 February 2024.
The claimant also failed to respond to an email and telephone call from the Tribunal on the day of the hearing requiring her attendance. Employment Judge Midgley struck out the claims under Rules 37 and 47 on the grounds that the claimant was not actively pursuing her claim and had failed to attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal; the judgment states the claims were struck out under Rules 37 and 47 because the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and failed to attend the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing category identifies public interest disclosure; the judgment states the claims were struck out under Rules 37 and 47 because the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and failed to attend the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing category identifies breach of contract; the judgment states the claims were struck out under Rules 37 and 47 because the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and failed to attend the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37 and 47 of the Tribunal Rules
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.