Case 1310836/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Boston v Clearabee Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1310836/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woffenden Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Boston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs S Boston did not attend the hearing and was not represented. The tribunal considered the information before it and proceeded in her absence. The respondent's application to strike out the claim, dated 18 August 2021, was granted.
The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order of 30 April 2021. It also struck out the claim under Rule 37(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any findings on the underlying merits of the claims.
No monetary award was made. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not set out the substantive heads of claim, but the case listing context identifies public interest disclosure as one of the claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(c) and Rule 37(d) without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the substantive claims in detail, but the case listing context identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claims. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(c) and Rule 37(d) without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.