Case 3200137/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ellie Church v Medicare EMS Group UK Limited and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200137/2023
- Decision date
- 29 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sugarman Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ellie Church
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEllie Church presented a claim form on 19 January 2023 against Medicare EMS Group UK Limited, later with Rapid Response Medical Services Ltd (In Administration) added as a second respondent. The claims pleaded were unfair dismissal, discrimination because of pregnancy or maternity, and notice pay. The tribunal noted that the background issue in dispute was whether there had been a TUPE transfer from Rapid to Medicare, including whether the claimant had been assigned to the transferring part of the business.
At a preliminary hearing on 19 June 2023, case management orders were made for disclosure, witness statements, and confirmation of readiness for the hearing. By the time of the public preliminary hearing on 29 August 2023, the claimant had not complied with those orders, had not provided witness evidence, and had not responded to correspondence from the respondent raising concerns that the claims were no longer being pursued. The claimant did not attend the hearing, did not answer calls, and did not respond to voicemail or email from the tribunal.
Employment Judge Sugarman also addressed whether recusal was needed because he knew counsel and the respondent's instructing solicitor in a professional capacity. Applying Porter v Magill and Locabail, he concluded that a fair-minded and informed observer would not see a real possibility of bias and that recusal was unnecessary. On the merits of case management, the judge found the claimant's failure to progress the claim had been intentional and inexcusable, that she held key evidence needed to determine the TUPE issue, and that it would not be fair or in the interests of justice to decide the transfer question without her participation. The claim was therefore struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; in the alternative, it would have been dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance. The tribunal noted that if the claimant later had a good reason for her default, she could apply for reconsideration.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim; the tribunal said it would alternatively have dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because of non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim; the tribunal said it would alternatively have dismissed the claim under Rule 47 because of non-attendance. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Breach of contract | The notice pay claim was not determined on its merits; it was struck out with the rest of the claim under Rule 37(1)(d), with dismissal under Rule 47 recorded in the alternative. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 47
- Evans v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis
- Porter v Magill
- Locabail (UK) Ltd v Bayfield Properties Ltd
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.