Case 1401149/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance v Ms J. Charalambous (Consultant) PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1401149/2021
- Decision date
- 3 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No appearance
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Smail at Exeter by video on 3 February 2022. The claimant, Ms Emma Birkett, did not appear. The respondent was represented by Ms J. Charalambous, consultant.
The judgment records that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. No further findings of fact, liability analysis, or remedy assessment are set out in the extract provided.
The tribunal therefore disposed of the case at the preliminary stage, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 3 February 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Claim type inferred from the published gov.uk listing category 'Public Interest Disclosure'; the judgment text itself only states that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the published gov.uk listing category 'Unfair Dismissal'; the judgment text itself only states that the claims were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.