Case 2306879/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs. L. Mercer v Nuffield Health Tunbridge Wells Hospital — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306879/2023
- Decision date
- 22 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sudra Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs. L. Mercer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the Claimant’s claim after repeated non-compliance with case management Orders. Orders were made on 2 May 2024 and again on 20 June 2024, and the Claimant was warned that failure to comply could result in strike out without further notice.
The Respondent wrote on 13 August 2024 asking why the Claimant had not complied and indicating that a strike-out application would be made if she did not comply with the Orders or engage in the process. The Respondent then applied for strike out on 21 August 2024 on the basis that the Claimant had not complied with Tribunal Orders and had not pursued the claim.
The Tribunal issued its own strike-out warning on 9 October 2024 and invited the Claimant to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing on that issue. On 18 October 2024, the Claimant replied that she did not wish to face Nuffield members in court. The Tribunal held that the claim should be struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the Claimant had failed to comply with an Order and had failed actively to pursue the claim. The final hearing listed for 23 to 24 October 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not state the substantive claim type in the body of the reasons; it is classified here from the GOV.UK listing for this case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.