Case 2402407/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Walker v Pebbles Care Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2402407/2021
- Decision date
- 23 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Walker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a remote preliminary hearing in Manchester on 10 June 2021, Employment Judge Rice-Birchall considered Miss L Walker's case against Pebbles Care. Miss Walker did not attend the hearing; the respondent was represented by Mr Sutherland, solicitor.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claim because she did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not actively pursuing her claim. The judgment records no merits findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Underlying category taken from the case listing; the judgment itself only records that the claimant's claim was struck out because she did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not actively pursuing her claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying category taken from the case listing; the judgment itself only records that the claimant's claim was struck out because she did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not actively pursuing her claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying category taken from the case listing; the judgment itself only records that the claimant's claim was struck out because she did not attend the preliminary hearing and was not actively pursuing her claim. | 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.