Case 1803179/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Bedford v Cambian Childcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1803179/2023
- Decision date
- 11 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Bedford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the claimant's complaint of unlawful disability discrimination only. By letter dated 23 February 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether that complaint should be struck out because she had not complied with paragraphs 8 and 9 of the case management orders dated 9 November 2023 and/or the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter and did not make written representations. The tribunal found that she had failed to comply with case management orders on matters essential to the disability discrimination complaint, had not requested more time, and had not explained why she could not comply. It concluded that it was not in the interests of justice for the claim to continue in those circumstances, so the complaint was struck out.
The judgment also records that the claimant's remaining complaints of breach of contract and unauthorised deduction of wages were still listed for hearing on 29 May 2024, with two hours allowed, but those claims were not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claimant's complaint of unlawful disability discrimination after she failed to respond to the tribunal's letter of 23 February 2024, did not make written representations, did not comply with case management orders dated 9 November 2023, and did not seek an extension or explain non-compliance. | 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.