Case 6002343/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Mahmood v Visiting Angels Care Ltd Heard at Leeds by CVP — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002343/2024
- Decision date
- 13 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Mahmood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 10 March 2025 before Employment Judge Davies, the Respondent applied for the claim brought by Ms A Mahmood against Visiting Angels Care Ltd to be struck out, arguing that the claim had not been actively pursued and that there had been non-compliance with Tribunal orders. The Claimant appeared in person and the Respondent was represented by Ms Fox, solicitor.
The Tribunal refused the strike-out application. It was not satisfied that the Claimant had failed actively to pursue the claim, noting that after a previous preliminary hearing at which she had not attended, she had communicated with the Tribunal and provided some evidence and explanation, and had confirmed that she wished to continue with the claim. Although the Claimant had failed to comply with Tribunal orders, the Tribunal accepted that part of the explanation was a period of poor health and concluded that a fair hearing remained possible. It held that striking out the claim would be disproportionate.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Respondent's application for the claim to be struck out for non-compliance with Tribunal orders or because it had not been actively pursued was refused. The underlying substantive claim was not determined on the merits in this judgment. | 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.