Case 3309286/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Baldry v Hunnabell Funeral Services — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309286/2022
- Decision date
- 1 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Baldry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Watford Employment Tribunal on 1 February 2023, Employment Judge Martin heard the case by CVP. The claimant, Miss N Baldry, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, Hunnabell Funeral Services, was represented by Mrs P Hunnabell, its director.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's breach of contract claim and her discrimination claim. The judgment states that both claims were dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. No further findings of fact or legal analysis are set out in the brief judgment.
Oral reasons were given at the hearing. The judgment notes that written reasons could be requested within fourteen days of the date the judgment was sent to the parties. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out and dismissed the breach of contract claim as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to a discrimination claim but does not identify the protected characteristic or specific statutory basis; it was struck out and dismissed as having no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.