Case 1301718/2017 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs L Phipps v Priory Group — 2019

Case reference: 1301718/2017
Decision date: 10 January 2019
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Findlay

Indexed: 20 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs L Phipps

Respondent

Priory Group

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37. It recorded that, by a letter dated 17 December 2018, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out.

The reasons given were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 18 September 2018 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing, so the claim was struck out and the listed January 2019 hearing did not take place.

Claims and outcomes

4 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Age discrimination	Gov.uk listing category identifies age discrimination, but the judgment text refers only to the claim being struck out and does not separately analyse this claim.	Struck out	Age	—
Disability discrimination	Gov.uk listing category identifies disability discrimination, but the judgment text refers only to the claim being struck out and does not separately analyse this claim.	Struck out	Disability	—
Unfair dismissal	Gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal, but the judgment text refers only to the claim being struck out and does not separately analyse this claim.	Struck out	—	—
Breach of contract	Gov.uk listing category identifies breach of contract, but the judgment text refers only to the claim being struck out and does not separately analyse this claim.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

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.

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.