Case 2301499/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Cordingley v The Royal School for the Blind — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301499/2022
- Decision date
- 19 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Cordingley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short Rule 38 disposal by Acting Regional Employment Judge Khalil. It records that the claims were dismissed because of non-compliance with the Unless Order dated 21 March 2024.
No merits findings are set out in the judgment, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment was dated 18 July 2024 and sent to the parties on 19 July 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not itemise the underlying claims. This claim type is inferred from the case listing/category metadata supplied in Layer 1; the judgment itself only states that the claims were dismissed under Rule 38 for non-compliance with the Unless Order dated 21 March 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Trade union | The written judgment does not itemise the underlying claims. This claim type is inferred from the case listing/category metadata supplied in Layer 1; the judgment itself only states that the claims were dismissed under Rule 38 for non-compliance with the Unless Order dated 21 March 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The written judgment does not itemise the underlying claims. This claim type is inferred from the case listing/category metadata supplied in Layer 1; the judgment itself only states that the claims were dismissed under Rule 38 for non-compliance with the Unless Order dated 21 March 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38
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.