Case 2417629/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Hume v Whitbread Group plc — 2022
- Case reference
- 2417629/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Hume
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded that the claimant had failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 30 September 2021, had failed to respond to enquiries about the non-attendance, and that it appeared the claim was not being actively pursued.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 30 September 2021 and again on 2 December 2021 giving an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant failed to make representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued; the supplied case context lists Unfair Dismissal as a gov.uk category, but the judgment text itself does not set out the underlying unfair dismissal allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued; the supplied case context lists Disability Discrimination as a gov.uk category, but the judgment text itself does not set out the underlying disability discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.