Case 1600643/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Respondent: Miss C Gardner Values in Care Ltd v Miss C Gardner Values in Care Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1600643/2024
- Decision date
- 8 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp On
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Respondent: Miss C Gardner Values in Care Ltd
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out and dismissed the claims described as failure to give adequate breaks, defamation, breach of confidentiality, and bullying on the grounds that it did not have jurisdiction to hear them. For the adequate breaks claim, the judgment also recorded that the claim was not brought in time when it was reasonably practicable to do so.
The Tribunal permitted a harassment claim, described as late evening emails and calls and multiple staff from head office contacting the claimant about concerns raised, to proceed on the basis that the claimant said it related to disability. It also permitted a claim described as overloading with the work of others to proceed as disability discrimination, with the head of claim undefined, limited to multiple emails to overload.
The judgment did not decide the merits of the disability-related matters or grant any amendment application. It stated that no application to amend had been made or considered and that the decision simply allowed such an application to be made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The claim described as failure to give adequate breaks was struck out and dismissed because the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction, including because it was not brought in time when it was reasonably practicable to do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claims described as defamation, breach of confidentiality, and bullying were struck out and dismissed on jurisdictional grounds. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The harassment claim relating to emails, calls, and head office contact was permitted to proceed on the basis that the claimant said it related to disability. The judgment states that no application to amend had been made or considered, and that the decision allowed the application to be made, not granted. | Other | Disability | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claim described as overloading with the work of others was permitted to proceed as disability discrimination, head of claim as yet undefined, only in respect of multiple emails to overload. The judgment states that no application to amend had been made or considered, and that the decision allowed the application to be made, not granted. | Other | Disability | — |
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.