Case 3201849/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Hannah Beetwell v Companion Care (Basildon) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3201849/2020
- Decision date
- 21 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Housego Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Hannah Beetwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment in Ms Hannah Beetwell v Companion Care (Basildon) Ltd records that the respondent applied to strike out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not been employed for two years. The tribunal granted that application, so the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
The judgment also records that the claimant said her financial claims for notice pay and holiday pay had been resolved. Those claims were dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. No monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
The tribunal further noted that the disability discrimination claims would proceed. This judgment does not determine those discrimination claims on their merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says the respondent applied to strike out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not been employed for two years, and the application was granted. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to this as one of the claimant's financial claims for notice pay. It says the claim had been resolved and was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to this as one of the claimant's financial claims for holiday pay. It says the claim had been resolved and was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.