Case 6008015/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Jonathan Burgess v Capstone Care Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6008015/2024
- Decision date
- 9 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Jonathan Burgess
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 9 September 2025 giving an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claims should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the claims were not being actively pursued and that the claimant was in breach of the Tribunal's orders.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims, and the hearing listed for 28 April 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The short judgment states that the claims are struck out because they were not being actively pursued and the claimant was in breach of Tribunal orders. It does not set out the factual allegations or merits of the disability discrimination claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment states that the claims are struck out because they were not being actively pursued and the claimant was in breach of Tribunal orders. It does not set out the factual allegations or merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.