Case 1405086/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Hayhurst v Hi9 Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 1405086/2023
- Decision date
- 20 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Hayhurst
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment in which Employment Judge Roper struck out the respondent's response in Ms L Hayhurst's case against Hi9 Limited. The tribunal recorded that, by letter dated 20 January 2025, the respondent had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the response should not be struck out because it had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 18 December 2025 and had not been actively pursued.
The respondent did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, to explain why strike out should not follow, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the response. No substantive findings on the underlying claims, liability, or remedy were made in this judgment.
The order states that the respondent remains entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the tribunal, but may only participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal did not determine the substantive employment claims in this judgment. It struck out the respondent's response after giving the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing and finding that no sufficient representations had been made in response to the proposed strike out. | 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.