Case 6005321/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Bhatti v London Healthcare Locums Ltd (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005321/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Bhatti
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the final hearing on 14 January 2025 at the East London Hearing Centre, Employment Judge Brewer recorded that Ms D Bhatti did not attend and had failed to take any steps in her claims. The respondent was represented by Ms Y Barly. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claimant's claims in case number 6005321/2024 pursuant to Rules 47 and 38(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The judgment records no findings on the underlying merits of any claim and no remedy award. It also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the individual heads of claim; it states that the claimant's claims under case number 6005321/2024 were struck out because she failed to take any steps, including failing to attend the final hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 47 and 38(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.