Case 1300234/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Griffiths v Sertronics Limited (in voluntary liquidation) — 2019
- Case reference
- 1300234/2019
- Decision date
- 12 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
- Venue
- Birmingham
- Panel members
- Mr Sharma, Mrs Hill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Griffiths
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Birmingham Employment Tribunal on 30 October 2019 before Employment Judge Cookson sitting with Mr Sharma and Mrs Hill. Neither party attended the hearing. The written judgment records that, because the claimant failed to attend and gave no reason for non-attendance, her claims were struck out.
The tribunal stated that the claims had not been actively pursued. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the listed claims, and no monetary award was recorded. The written record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | Claim type inferred from the public case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | This is the protective award claim category from the public case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Claim type inferred from the public case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Claim type inferred from the public case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Claim type inferred from the public case listing; the judgment itself only states that the claimant's claims were struck out because they were not actively pursued. | 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.