Case 1802482/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Danskin v Abbeyfield the Dales Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1802482/2022
- Decision date
- 26 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Danskin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy order dated 29 July 2022, the Tribunal gave Mrs Danskin an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The judgment records that she failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge D N Jones ordered that the claim be struck out. The judgment does not contain any determination of the merits of the underlying complaint, and no remedy was awarded.
The judgment also records that the hearing listed for 9 to 12 January 2023 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not separately identify the underlying claim type in the reasons; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out for not having been actively pursued. This classification follows the gov.uk listing category 'Public Interest Disclosure' provided in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately identify the underlying claim type in the reasons; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out for not having been actively pursued. This classification follows the gov.uk listing category 'Unfair Dismissal' provided in the case context. | 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.