Case 2303925/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Don Nonisge v Haven Care Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303925/2018
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Russell Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Don Nonisge
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss T Don Nonisge did not attend the hearing and was not represented. Haven Care Limited was represented by Mr D Bansal, solicitor. The case was heard at East London Hearing Centre on 4 March 2020 before Employment Judge Russell, and the written judgment was dated 6 March 2020.
The tribunal struck out all claims. It held that they had not been actively pursued, and in the alternative struck them out because of persistent non-compliance with the tribunal's orders. No merits findings were made and no monetary award was recorded.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of sending the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type; classification follows the case listing / provided hint. The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(1)(d), alternatively Rule 37(1)(c). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.