Case 1305214/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Matthews v Heron Foods Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305214/2021
- Decision date
- 31 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Matthews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 31 August 2022 Employment Judge Woffenden struck out Miss R Matthews' claim against Heron Foods. The Tribunal had sent a letter dated 19 August 2022 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because she had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 10 January 2022 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore ordered that the claim be struck out. The hearing listed for 6 and 7 September 2022 did not take place, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment only states that 'the claim is struck out'. The claim type is taken from the case context listing categories rather than from the judgment text itself. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment only states that 'the claim is struck out'. The claim type is taken from the case context listing categories rather than from the judgment text itself. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment only states that 'the claim is struck out'. The claim type is taken from the case context listing categories rather than from the judgment text itself. | 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.