Case 2302968/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Warden v Countrystyle Recycling Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2302968/2024
- Decision date
- 12 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss B Warden
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a short strike-out decision in case 2302968/2024 brought by Miss B Warden against Countrystyle Recycling Limited and More Recruitment Kent Limited. The Tribunal recorded that the claim was struck out after the claimant failed to attend, and was not represented, at the hearing listed for 16 January 2025.
The reasons state that the Tribunal contacted the claimant by telephone and email but was unable to contact her and received no response. The judgment then says the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, although the operative judgment states that the claim was struck out.
No substantive liability findings or remedy awards are set out in the decision. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Rice-Birchall on 16 January 2025 and sent to the parties on 12 February 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claim was struck out after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing listed for 16 January 2025. It also states that the Tribunal proceeded to dismiss the claim pursuant to rule 47, but the headline judgment and operative disposition say the claim is struck out. | 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.