Case 1601257/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Harris v Pieminister Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601257/2023
- Decision date
- 28 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Harris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a case management order dated 30 October 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 26 September 2023, and that it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Moore therefore struck out the claim on 28 November 2023. The judgment contains no determination of the substantive merits and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text does not set out the underlying unfair dismissal particulars; the claim type is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal recorded only that the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The extracted judgment text does not identify the substantive age discrimination allegations; the claim type is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal recorded only that the claim was struck out. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- not actively pursued
- non-compliance with tribunal order
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.