Case 3307099/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Christine Smith v Direct Independent Care Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307099/2022
- Decision date
- 7 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Christine Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a telephone hearing on 22 February 2023, but despite attempts by the Tribunal to telephone the claimant, there was no answer and the hearing did not go ahead. On 7 March 2023 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant and gave her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The claimant replied by email on 7 March 2023, explaining that she was having difficulty dealing with matters connected to family court proceedings and alleged data breaches, and said she would be happy to attend another employment tribunal hearing after those proceedings had been closed and the alleged privacy breaches had stopped. The Tribunal treated those representations as showing that the claimant was not currently actively pursuing the case and had no intention of doing so at that time.
The judgment therefore struck out the claim. No substantive liability findings or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. A telephone hearing listed for 22 February 2023 did not take place because the claimant could not be reached, and after the Tribunal’s letter of 7 March 2023 inviting representations the claimant said she was not currently able to deal with the case and would be willing to attend another hearing after her family court proceedings had concluded. | 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.