Case 1300935/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Hyo Jin Jeon v Digiland Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1300935/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Flood
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Hyo Jin Jeon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a case management order sent on 16 January 2023, following a hearing held the same day, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success and that it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Flood recorded that the claim was struck out. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims.
No monetary award was made. The reasons give only the strike-out basis and do not contain any separate remedy assessment or apportionment between claim types.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not set out the underlying factual allegations; it states only that the claim was struck out after the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing in response to the case management order of 16 January 2023. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate outcomes by head of claim; it records that the claim was struck out in full for failure to make sufficient 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.