Case 2602445/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Stimson v Aberdeen House Care Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602445/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Stimson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Adkinson considered the file on 11 March 2020. The written judgment records that the claimant's claims were struck out because they were not being actively pursued.
The reasons state that on 7 February 2020 the tribunal wrote to the claimant indicating that the claims appeared not to be actively pursued. The claimant was given until 14 February 2020 to make representations or request a hearing, but by the date of the judgment she had done neither.
The tribunal was therefore satisfied that the claims were not actively pursued and should be struck out. No remedy or monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not list each pleaded claim individually; this claim is inferred from the case listing categories. The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not list each pleaded claim individually; this claim is inferred from the case listing categories. The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not list each pleaded claim individually; this claim is inferred from the case listing categories. The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment does not list each pleaded claim individually; this claim is inferred from the case listing categories. The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims because they were not actively pursued. | 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.