Case 1406174/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms E Hambry v AL Realisations Limited (formerly Laura Ashley Limited) in Voluntary Creditors Liquidation and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406174/2020
- Decision date
- 12 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms E Hambry
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that on 19 October 2021 the claimant was asked to say whether she wished to proceed against the respondents in voluntary liquidation, with a response requested by 26 October 2021. No response was received.
On 8 December 2021 the tribunal wrote again, stating that Employment Judge Dawson was considering striking out the claim because it had not been actively pursued, and asked for a reply by 15 December 2021. No response was received to that letter either.
The tribunal held that the claim had not been actively pursued and therefore struck it out. The judgment, sent to the parties on 12 January 2022, does not record any merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's correspondence of 19 October 2021 and 8 December 2021. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's correspondence of 19 October 2021 and 8 December 2021. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's correspondence of 19 October 2021 and 8 December 2021. | 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.