Case 1403553/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Abrahams Miss L Chase Miss K Diaz Miss C Fitzgerald Miss M Diaz Miss K Farmer Mrs I Icheva Mr D Andreyeu v Botleigh Grange Hotel Ltd (in Administration) and 3 others — 2020
- Case reference
- 1403553/2018
- Decision date
- 11 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Dated
Parties
5 namedClaimant
Miss L Abrahams Miss L Chase Miss K Diaz Miss C Fitzgerald Miss M Diaz Miss K Farmer Mrs I Icheva Mr D Andreyeu
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity by letter dated 19 March 2020 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out. The proposed grounds were that the claimants had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 17 February 2020 and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimants failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out particulars of this claim; the claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category and the judgment records that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out particulars of this claim; the claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category and the judgment records that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out particulars of this claim; the claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category and the judgment records that the claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.