Case 6005742/2024 · Employment Tribunal
A Edwardson v Northern Care Alliance NHS Foundation Trust — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005742/2024
- Decision date
- 9 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A Edwardson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under the active pursuit case management route. A letter dated 29 July 2025 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
Judge Johnson noted the respondent solicitor's correspondence, including the point that a strike out warning had been sent after the revised compliance dates had passed. Even so, the judgment records that the revised time limits proposed by the respondent in its letter of 31 July 2025 were also not complied with, and that the claimant had made no attempt to progress the claim.
The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to make written representations, or any sufficient representations, as to why strike out should not occur, and did not request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out. The hearing fixed for 8, 9 and 10 December 2025 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying legal heads of claim in the text provided. The entire claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | 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.