Case 6002144/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Tobin v Aesthetic Health — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002144/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Tobin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 October 2024, the Tribunal gave Miss C Tobin an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated concerns were that she appeared not to have complied with case management orders set out in the Notice of Hearing dated 10 July 2024, and that she had failed to respond to the Tribunal’s letters of 8 and 10 October 2024, indicating that she was not actively pursuing her claim.
The claimant was given until 18 October 2024 to respond, but she did not make written representations or any sufficient representations by that date. The reasons record that, because of an administrative delay, the file was not referred to a judge until 9 January 2025, although in the ordinary course the claim would have been struck out on 18 October 2024 for failure to respond.
The claimant later emailed the Tribunal on 7 January 2025 saying that she wished to pursue the claim and would provide her evidence. She did not explain why the claim should not be struck out, or why she had failed to respond to earlier letters or comply with the case management orders. Employment Judge Bright concluded from the sequence of events that the claimant was and is not actively pursuing her claim, and the claim was struck out on 9 January 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment did not determine the merits of this claim separately; the claim was struck out for failure to respond and for not actively pursuing the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment did not determine the merits of this claim separately; the claim was struck out for failure to respond and for not actively pursuing the case. | 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.