Case 3311604/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Neal v CGMD Ltd T/A Community Care Service — 2022
- Case reference
- 3311604/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Neal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued a strike-out judgment in Miss E Neal v CGMD Ltd T/A Community Care Service. It recorded that, by letter dated 12 March 2022, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The Tribunal identified three concerns: that the claimant did not appear to have sufficient service for her unfair dismissal claim, that she had not provided the further information ordered in paragraph 7 of the case management order dated 31 January 2022 or the schedule of loss ordered in paragraph 11, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, in response to that opportunity and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive determination of liability on the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claim was struck out. In the reasons, the Tribunal referred to the claimant not appearing to have sufficient service for her unfair dismissal claim, failing to provide further information ordered on 31 January 2022, failing to provide a schedule of loss, and not actively pursuing the claim. | 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.