Case 2420745/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Hall v Advinia Healthcare Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2420745/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Hall brought complaints of disability discrimination and unpaid wages against Advinia Healthcare Ltd. The claims were dealt with at a case management hearing before Employment Judge Robinson on 12 July 2021, after which orders were made and a preliminary hearing was listed. The claimant did not comply with those orders and the respondent applied for an Unless Order.
The claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 11 October 2021. She wrote to say she wanted the hearing to proceed in her absence and that she wished to be "settled for an apology". The Tribunal then stayed proceedings and directed the parties to ACAS, but no settlement notification was received.
By an order dated 11 October 2021, Employment Judge Aspinall required the claimant to write within 28 days confirming whether she wished to pursue the complaint. She was warned that if she did not do so, the claim would be struck out without further hearing. The claimant did not comply with that order.
In the judgment dated 21 April 2022, the Tribunal struck out the claim of its own volition for non-compliance with the order under Rule 37(1)(c). It also recorded, in the alternative, that the claimant had not corresponded with the Tribunal or the respondent between July and October 2021 apart from her earlier email, had not responded to the 11 October 2021 order, and that the complaint had not been actively pursued, so it was also struck out under Rule 37(1)(d).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination complaint was struck out in its entirety for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of 11 October 2021 under Rule 37(1)(c), and alternatively because it had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The unpaid wages complaint was struck out in its entirety for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of 11 October 2021 under Rule 37(1)(c), and alternatively because it had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.