L Martin-Valentino v Carol Baker — 2025

Case reference: 6012062/2024
Decision date: 16 September 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Midgley Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

L Martin-Valentino

Respondent

Carol Baker

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On 4 July 2025 Employment Judge Midgley Date struck out the claim. The Tribunal had sent a letter dated 31 May 2025 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out.

The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 28 February 2025 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not follow, and also did not request a hearing.

As a result, the Tribunal ordered that the claim be struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded and no further substantive findings on the underlying working time issue were made in the judgment.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Working time regulations	The Tribunal struck out the claim after the claimant failed to make representations, or any sufficient representations, in response to the letter dated 31 May 2025 and did not request a hearing.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.