Case 2601035/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Helen Wardle v Arnold Home Care Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2601035/2022
- Decision date
- 29 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Millns Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Helen Wardle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a Rule 21 judgment in which Employment Judge Millns recorded that the claim succeeded. The judgment does not identify the individual heads of claim in the extracted text, but it does state that the tribunal was acting under Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal noted that the respondent had failed to present a response and was therefore barred from taking part in the proceedings without permission, which it did not seek. After considering the evidence presented by the claimant, the tribunal made the success finding and left remedy to be determined at a later hearing.
No monetary award is fixed in this judgment. The tribunal ordered that remedy would be determined at a Remedy Hearing listed for 2-3 November 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted text is a one-page Rule 21 judgment and does not identify the individual heads of claim; it states only that the claim succeeds and that remedy will be determined at a later hearing. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.