Case 2402831/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Fitzpatrick v Nugent Care 2019 Limited operating as ‘Nugent’ — 2024
- Case reference
- 2402831/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Fitzpatrick
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant had been issued with a strike out warning in case management orders following a Preliminary Hearing on 12 September 2024, which the claimant did not attend. The claimant was given until 03 October 2024 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because she had not complied with Tribunal orders dated 02 July 2024 and 16 July 2024, and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out, and the hearing listed for 10 January 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The source listing categorised the case as Public Interest Disclosure, but the short judgment does not set out particulars of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The source listing categorised the case as Sex Discrimination, but the short judgment does not set out particulars of the claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The source listing categorised the case as Unfair Dismissal, but the short judgment does not set out particulars of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The source listing categorised the case as Victimisation Discrimination, but the short judgment does not set out particulars of the 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.