Case 1601804/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Davies v Roberts Care Homes NW Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601804/2020
- Decision date
- 24 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Jenkins Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Davies
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that by letter dated 12 August 2021 the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 3 June 2021, section 9. The claimant did not cure the non-compliance.
The judgment then states simply that the claim is struck out. No substantive findings were made on the merits of any pleaded complaint, and no remedy or award was recorded.
The decision was issued by Employment Judge S Jenkins on 22 September 2021 and sent to the parties on 24 September 2021.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out after the claimant was given an opportunity by letter dated 12 August 2021 to make representations or request a hearing about non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of 3 June 2021, section 9. The judgment does not separately address the underlying heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out after the claimant was given an opportunity by letter dated 12 August 2021 to make representations or request a hearing about non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of 3 June 2021, section 9. The judgment does not separately address the underlying heads of claim. | 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.