Case 1600803/2016 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Y Panniers; Mr H Joseph; Mr S Jones & Miss Y Maczala v AWC Management Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1600803/2016
- Decision date
- 20 August 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beard Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs Y Panniers; Mr H Joseph; Mr S Jones & Miss Y Maczala
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment covering four joined cases: 1600803/2016, 1066804/2016, 1600806/2016 and 1600807/2016. By letter dated 8 July 2019, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claims should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The judgment records that the claimants failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Beard struck out the claims under rule 37.
The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of any claim and does not record any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Joined case; the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing after the Tribunal's 8 July 2019 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Joined case; the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing after the Tribunal's 8 July 2019 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Joined case; the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing after the Tribunal's 8 July 2019 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Joined case; the Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing after the Tribunal's 8 July 2019 letter. | 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.