Case 2410287/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Alam v Bolton Cares (A) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2410287/2023
- Decision date
- 1 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler Representation
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Alam
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 23 May 2025, Employment Judge M Butler struck out allegations 6(c), 6(d) and 6(m) under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The judgment identified those allegations as part of the constructive dismissal part of Miss Alam's complaint and recorded that the reasons were given orally at the hearing.
The tribunal also struck out allegation 28, which it described as the entirety of the claimant's complaint brought under the Working Time Regulations 1998. That allegation concerned an alleged failure to permit a 20-minute rest break away from work during shifts, said to be a breach of regulation 12(1). The judgment stated that the strike-out did not affect any other allegations brought by the claimant. No monetary remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment struck out allegations 6(c), 6(d) and 6(m), which it said formed part of the constructive dismissal part of the complaint. It stated that this did not affect any other allegations brought by the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Allegation 28 was struck out. The tribunal said this allegation was the entirety of the claimant's complaint under the Working Time Regulations 1998, concerning an alleged refusal to permit a 20-minute rest break under regulation 12(1). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.