Case 3311760/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Bal Swami v Bespoke Care At Home Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 3311760/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Representation
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Bal Swami
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Watford on 29 November 2021 before Employment Judge Dick. The claimant, Bal Swami, did not attend the hearing in person or over the Cloud Video Platform and was not represented. Tedi Cosham attended for the first respondent, Bespoke Care At Home Ltd, and the second respondent, Bespoke Care Ltd, was named in the judgment.
The tribunal recorded that all claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance. No merits findings were made and no remedy was awarded. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing, but no written reasons would be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing in person or over the Cloud Video Platform. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing in person or over the Cloud Video Platform. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing in person or over the Cloud Video Platform. | Dismissed | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.