Case 3303052/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Smith-Batchelor v ISIS Chiropractic Healthcare LLP — 2020
- Case reference
- 3303052/2020
- Decision date
- 29 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Smith-Batchelor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment under rule 37, not a merits decision. Employment Judge Ord recorded that by a letter dated 2 March 2021 the Tribunal gave Mrs R Smith-Batchelor an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because she had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 29 October 2020 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment states that the hearing fixed for 26 July 2021 would not take place.
No liability findings or monetary remedy were made. The judgment does not identify any substantive statutory claims in the text provided, so the case is recorded as a strike out of the claim as a whole rather than a merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type(s); it records that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37 for non-compliance with an order dated 29 October 2020 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.