Case 1406134/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Gregory v MNP Installations c/o Michael Norman Pullinger — 2024
- Case reference
- 1406134/2023
- Decision date
- 12 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Gregory
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 24 June 2024, the tribunal gave Miss M Gregory an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why her claim should not be struck out. The reason given was that she had not complied with tribunal orders dated 15 April 2024 and 18 May 2024 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Livesey struck out the claim. The judgment records no merits determination and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with tribunal orders dated 15 April 2024 and 18 May 2024 and because it had not been actively pursued. The underlying claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category for Working Time Regulations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with tribunal orders dated 15 April 2024 and 18 May 2024 and because it had not been actively pursued. This entry is used for the written pay statement aspect reflected in the gov.uk listing, which is not mapped to a more specific taxonomy label in the output schema. | 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.