Case 3308946/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v Conquest Care Homes (Peterborough Ltd) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3308946/2023
- Decision date
- 9 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Miss N Townsend, did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The respondent, Conquest Care Homes (Peterborough Limited), was represented by Miss L Evans, solicitor. The hearing took place at Norwich by CVP on 18 March 2024 before Employment Judge Postle.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment states that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success, that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted had been unreasonable and/or vexatious, and that the claim was not being actively pursued.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The written record states that reasons for the judgment were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the record of decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim struck out under Rule 37 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success, the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably and/or vexatiously, and the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim struck out under Rule 37 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success, the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably and/or vexatiously, and the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim struck out under Rule 37 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success, the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably and/or vexatiously, and the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim struck out under Rule 37 on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success, the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably and/or vexatiously, and the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(d)
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.