Case 1804874/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Baldwin v Barnsley Hospital BHFT — 2023
- Case reference
- 1804874/2022
- Decision date
- 25 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Baldwin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal did not determine the underlying merits of any substantive complaint. On 20 November 2022 Employment Judge Deeley made case management orders and listed the matter for a hearing in June 2023. The respondent later said the claimant had not complied fully with those orders and sought an unless order, and on 16 February 2023 Employment Judge Rogerson required the claimant to respond to the respondent's letters by 23 February 2023.
The respondent applied on 6 March 2023 for the claim to be struck out, saying the claimant had not complied with orders 7, 10, 12 and 15, had not actively pursued the claim, and had conducted the proceedings unreasonably. The tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity on 5 April 2023 to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, with a response due by 14 April 2023, but no response was received.
The tribunal found that the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued and that it was consistent with the overriding objective to strike it out on that basis. The hearing listed for 5 June 2023 to 16 June 2023 did not take place. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole for failure to comply with case management orders, failure actively to pursue the claim, and unreasonable conduct. The reasons do not identify or adjudicate separate substantive causes of action on their merits. | 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.