Case 3334828/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Tsehaye v Autism at Kingwood Sarah Baldock Michelle Fairless Rachell Watkins Bob Horwood — 2022
- Case reference
- 3334828/2018
- Decision date
- 29 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Tsehaye
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was issued on 18 November 2018 and had already been through earlier hearings and case management orders before the 26 March 2021 hearing before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto. The tribunal recorded that, at a preliminary hearing on 19 September 2019, EJ Anstis had found the pleadings so complex and confusing that it was impossible to discern the claims clearly, and had directed the claimant to identify whether any race discrimination claims were brought against individual respondents and, if so, on what basis.
The tribunal noted that the claimant did not comply with those directions. After a further preliminary hearing before EJ Milner-Moore on 22 June 2020, a further order required the claimant to set out which claims she was pursuing against which respondents and on what basis by 7 July 2020. Although further particulars were filed on 6 July 2020, the claimant later ceased to have representation, provided a schedule of loss on 26 July 2020, and then had no further contact with the tribunal.
At the March 2021 hearing the tribunal decided to strike out the claim. It accepted that the unfair dismissal claim was sufficiently clear to identify, but considered the other claims were not properly formulated or sustainable on the basis of the pleadings. The tribunal also concluded that the claims were not being actively pursued. The final hearing listed for 25 April 2022 to 29 April 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment did not separately analyse this head before striking the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment did not separately analyse this head before striking the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment referred to race discrimination claims and noted that the claimant had not complied with orders to clarify whether any were brought against individual respondents. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judge said this claim was clear enough to identify, but struck the claim out because of non-compliance with earlier orders and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment did not separately analyse this head before striking the claim out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment did not separately analyse this head before striking the claim out. | 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.