Case 1601184/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Baker (Union Representative) For the v CareTech Community Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601184/2017
- Decision date
- 25 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Baker (Union Representative) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, by a letter dated 13 July 2021, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were non-compliance with Tribunal Orders dated 26 April and 24 July 2021 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Orders dated 26 April and 24 July 2021 and because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment text does not separately analyse the unfair dismissal claim; classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Orders dated 26 April and 24 July 2021 and because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment text does not separately analyse the disability discrimination claim; classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | 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.