Case 6013385/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Kosma v Safe and Sound Wiltshire LLP which trades as Bluebird Care (Wiltshire North) — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013385/2024
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Kosma
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 30 October 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim. The warning was based on apparent non-compliance with an order requiring the claimant to explain non-attendance at the 16 July 2025 hearing and to confirm whether she was pursuing the claim.
The claimant did not reply to the letter or request a hearing. Employment Judge Bax was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claim was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 38; it did not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 38; it did not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 38; it did not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 38; it did not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.