Case 2305303/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Nightingales Retirement Care Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305303/2019
- Decision date
- 4 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 21 January 2021, the tribunal considered whether there was a valid ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate. It found that the ET1 had been presented without any certificate, that none of the exemptions applied, and that there had been no interaction with ACAS before the claim was brought. The tribunal therefore held that it had no jurisdiction to accept the claim and dismissed it.
After giving that decision, the respondent applied for costs in the sum of £450 on the basis that the hearing had been unnecessary and that the claimant had been warned about the position. The judge said that a costs order could in principle be made, but refused to make one because the claimant had insufficient means to pay. The tribunal noted that she was living on her own, had two children in foster care, was in receipt of Universal Credit, and had not worked since September, so no order for costs was made under Rule 84.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type in the extracted text. The claim was dismissed because no ACAS Early Conciliation Certificate had been obtained and no exemption applied. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunals Act 1996 s.18A
- Rule 12
- Rule 84
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.