Case 1804462/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Khan v Beaumont Care Limited t/a Caremark Calderdale HELD by Cloud Video Platform (CVP) (Leeds) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1804462/2022
- Decision date
- 15 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shulman REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Khan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a hearing by CVP on 2 November 2022 before Employment Judge Shulman. The claimant, Ms Y Khan, did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal had the clerk telephone the claimant, but the call was not answered and a message was left that she was expected to attend. The judge waited until 2.15pm for the claimant to arrive, but she did not do so.
The respondent, Beaumont Care Limited trading as Caremark Calderdale, pointed out that the claimant had stated in the claim form that she would not be able to take part in a hearing by video. The tribunal noted, however, that the notice of hearing made clear that the hearing would proceed by CVP and that there was no application by the claimant for a hearing other than by CVP. In those circumstances, and in the claimant's absence, the tribunal dismissed all claims. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying merits or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out the substantive pleading, but the gov.uk listing for the case identifies breach of contract and the tribunal dismissed all claims in the claimant's absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not specify the individual working time allegation, but the case listing identifies a working time regulations claim and the tribunal dismissed all claims in the claimant's absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.