Case 1401388/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Brownlie v Nandos Chickenland Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1401388/2023
- Decision date
- 16 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Brownlie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued a letter dated 16 January 2024 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 18 October 2023 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Roper struck out the claim. The judgment records a procedural strike out only and does not determine the merits of the underlying complaints.
No remedy was awarded and no liability findings were made on the substance of the unfair dismissal, age discrimination, or disability discrimination claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out by judgment dated 8 February 2024 after the claimant did not make representations in response to the Tribunal's letter of 16 January 2024. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out for the same case-management reasons; the judgment records no merits determination. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out for the same case-management reasons; the judgment records no merits determination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.