Case 2602421/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Cahill v Bluebird Care North East Lincolnshire — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602421/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Cahill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment states that the claimant, Mrs A Cahill, brought a claim against Bluebird Care North East Lincolnshire, but it does not identify the underlying substantive cause of action in the extracted text. The Tribunal's decision was limited to case management and strike-out issues.
By a letter dated 23 January 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons given were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 October 2022 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Swann struck out the claim. No remedy was awarded and no substantive findings on the merits of the underlying dispute were recorded in the extracted judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type. It records only that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 27 October 2022 and had not actively pursued the claim. | 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.