Case 1600020/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v A Mahalakshmi Govinda v Khana Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1600020/2021
- Decision date
- 24 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant an opportunity, by letter dated 21 February 2022, to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons given were that the claim had not been actively pursued and that the claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, in response to that letter and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore concluded that the claim should be struck out.
The hearing listed for 25 March 2022 was vacated and did not take place. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Brace on 10 March 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action in the extracted text. It records that, by letter dated 21 February 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued and for non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.