Case 1400627/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Borris v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 1400627/2024
- Decision date
- 9 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Miss M Borris
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Smail struck out the claim on 13 December 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal had previously made a case management order on 15 October 2024 giving the claimant an opportunity to explain her non-attendance and to make representations, or request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not provide the requested explanation and did not make written representations by the deadline of 29 October 2024. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim and confirmed that the hearing listed for 30 April 2025 to 2 May 2025 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide the explanation for non-attendance requested by the case management order dated 15 October 2024, and did not make written representations by 29 October 2024. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide the explanation for non-attendance requested by the case management order dated 15 October 2024, and did not make written representations by 29 October 2024. | 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.