Case 1402651/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Rigasova v Brake Bros Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1402651/2022
- Decision date
- 4 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Rigasova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 29 May 2024 giving an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with an order requiring urgent confirmation about compliance with case management orders, readiness for hearing, settlement matters, the composition of the tribunal, and ability to join by video.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The hearing was adjourned and was not to be relisted.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal. The judgment itself states only that the claim is struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and because it has not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies religion or belief discrimination. The judgment itself states only that the claim is struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and because it has not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
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.