Case 2602347/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Wright v Chartwell Care Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602347/2021
- Decision date
- 7 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs R Wright presented her claim on 27 September 2021. A closed preliminary hearing listed for 28 February 2022 was postponed after the claimant reported that she had tested positive for COVID-19. At that point the tribunal ordered her to provide further information about her sexual harassment complaint, including what acts were alleged, when they were committed, and by whom. The respondent was also permitted to seek further information about the victimisation complaint.
The claimant was given 28 days to comply with the order on sexual harassment and 21 days after receipt of the respondent's request to answer the victimisation request. By the resumed preliminary hearing on 7 April 2022, the claimant did not attend and had sent no explanation or application for a further postponement. Mr Cumming, for the respondent, told the tribunal that the claimant had not replied to the request for further particulars and that chasing emails had received no response.
Employment Judge Brewer struck out the claims under rule 37 because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 28 February 2022 and/or the claims had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the hearing fixed for 25, 26 and 27 September 2023 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The judgment refers to a complaint of sexual harassment and strikes out the claimant's claims for failure to provide further particulars and for not actively pursuing the case. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Victimisation | The respondent requested further information on the victimisation complaint, but the claimant did not comply and the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.