Case 1601747/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs J Maxwell v E &A Homes Ltd t/a St Jude Care Home — 2019
- Case reference
- 1601747/2019
- Decision date
- 31 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs J Maxwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs J Maxwell presented claims on 30 September 2019 against E&A Homes Ltd t/a St Jude Residential Home and two named individuals. The claims against Carol James and Alison Bishop were rejected because there was no early conciliation certificate number for those individuals, and that rejection was not challenged, so those purported proceedings were not extant.
The remaining claim against the respondent was listed for a telephone case management preliminary hearing on 20 December 2019, but the claimant did not attend. Employment Judge Moore ordered her to provide a written explanation for that absence within seven days and to give further information about the whistleblowing claim by 17 January 2020. The hearing was relisted for 7 February 2020, but the claimant again did not attend and there was no record of her contacting the tribunal or complying with the order. The respondent also said it had received no contact and no further information.
Employment Judge Harfield applied Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules and dismissed the claim because the claimant had failed to attend for a second time, had failed to contact the tribunal or the respondent, and had failed to comply with the case management orders. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the unfair dismissal, whistleblowing, or payments-owed allegations, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend the relisted telephone case management hearing on 7 February 2020, had also failed to attend the earlier hearing on 20 December 2019, and had not complied with the tribunal's directions. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Dismissed under Rule 47. The tribunal noted that the claimant had been directed to provide further information about the whistleblowing claim by 17 January 2020 but did not do so. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | This reflects the claim described in the judgment as for 'payments owed'. The judgment did not particularise that head further and dismissed the claim under Rule 47. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment 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.