Case 1804765/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Ms B Cheetham v Heavenly Body Ltd — 2023

Case reference: 1804765/2022
Decision date: 6 June 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Davies

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Ms B Cheetham

Respondent

Heavenly Body Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a procedural judgment by Employment Judge Davies dated 6 June 2023. In claims 1804765/2022 and 1806679/2022, the tribunal struck out the respondent's responses after previously warning on 12 May 2023 that strike-out was being considered. A preliminary hearing had originally been listed for 6 April 2023, then postponed to 12 May 2023. The tribunal had sent notice to the respondent's email addresses previously provided in the proceedings, but the respondent did not attend the hearing, could not be reached by phone, and did not send any explanation or request for a further hearing.

In claim 1800167/2023, the tribunal recorded that no response was on file. The claimant had applied for judgment under Rule 21. The respondent said it had filed a response before 24 February 2023 and sent material said to evidence that, but the material related to a different claim and the proof of posting predated service of this claim form. The tribunal asked the respondent to provide a full copy of the response and proof of sending, but none was provided. It therefore concluded that no response had been presented, and said that if a response had been presented it would have been struck out for the same reasons in any event.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

This case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	Claim 1804765/2022: the respondent's response was struck out after the tribunal warned on 12 May 2023 that strike-out was being considered, the respondent did not attend the 12 May 2023 preliminary hearing, and it did not provide any explanation or request a hearing by the deadline.	Struck out	—	—
Other	Claim 1806679/2022: the respondent's response was struck out for the same reasons, namely non-attendance at the 12 May 2023 preliminary hearing after prior warning and no subsequent communication from the respondent.	Struck out	—	—
Other	Claim 1800167/2023: the tribunal recorded that no response had been presented. The claimant had applied for judgment under Rule 21, and the respondent's emailed material did not show that a response to this claim had been filed.	Other	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.