Case 1402562/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Madeline-Storm Hall v JWJ Pubs Limited t/a The Royal Albert — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402562/2022
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge O’Rourke
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Madeline-Storm Hall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a record of a preliminary hearing heard in private by telephone at Bristol on 24 August 2023 before Employment Judge C H O’Rourke. The Claimant, Ms Madeline-Storm Hall, did not attend and was not represented. The Respondent was represented by its director, Mr S Vick.
The tribunal recorded that the Claimant’s claims of unfair dismissal, sex discrimination, detriment on grounds of public interest disclosure, breach of contract in respect of notice, and arrears of holiday pay were struck out under Rule 37(1) of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure 2013. The stated reasons were that the Claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders and that her claim was not being actively pursued.
No remedy was awarded, and the decision was sent to the parties on 13 September 2023.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out subject to Rule 37(1) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out subject to Rule 37(1) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a detriment on grounds of public interest disclosure. It was struck out subject to Rule 37(1) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was for breach of contract in respect of notice. It was struck out subject to Rule 37(1) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claim was for arrears of holiday pay. It was struck out subject to Rule 37(1) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1) 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.