Case 1405179/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Freeman v 1.Laurie Coventry 2.Little Giggles Soft Play 3.LAAS Leisure Holdings Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1405179/2019
- Decision date
- 2 April 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harper MBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Freeman
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 21 March 2019, the Tribunal gave the respondents an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the part of the response dealing with unfair dismissal should not be struck out on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The respondents did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Employment Judge therefore struck out that part of the response relating to unfair dismissal. The judgment states that the respondents remained entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions on that part, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The judgment does not decide the substantive unfair dismissal claim or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a strike-out judgment under rule 37 and records that the response for all respondents was struck out in part, namely regarding unfair dismissal. It does not determine the substantive merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.