Case 2418476/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Sharron Murphy v Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2418476/2020
- Decision date
- 7 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Sharron Murphy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Liverpool on 7 June 2022 before Employment Judge Ord. The claimant, Ms Sharron Murphy, did not attend and the respondent was represented by Mr James Taylor, Trainee Solicitor.
The tribunal stated that all complaints were struck out because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders of 21 October 2021, had not actively pursued her claims, and had not attended the hearing. No merits findings were made on the underlying complaints.
The written record notes that the judgment was given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out with all complaints because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders of 21 October 2021, had not actively pursued the claims, and did not attend the hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out with all complaints because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders of 21 October 2021, had not actively pursued the claims, and did not attend the hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out with all complaints because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders of 21 October 2021, had not actively pursued the claims, and did not attend the hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out with all complaints because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders of 21 October 2021, had not actively pursued the claims, and did not attend the hearing. | 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.