Case 1601602/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Mrs G A Shute v 2 Agriculture Ltd — 2022

Case reference: 1601602/2021
Decision date: 20 December 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge S Moore JUDGMENT
Venue: By video

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mrs G A Shute

Respondent

2 Agriculture Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant presented claims on 7 October 2021. They included unfair dismissal, direct disability discrimination, discrimination arising from disability, failure to make reasonable adjustments, equal pay and unauthorised deduction from wages. The case was listed for final hearing in July 2022, but at a preliminary hearing on 1 April 2022 the tribunal considered that the hearing could not be completed in the allotted time and made case management orders for the parties to provide unavailable dates, for the claimant to provide further particulars and for a schedule of loss to be produced.

The claimant did not comply with those orders within time and sought extensions, explaining that she had chronic daily migraines and other health problems. The respondent applied for strike out. Judge Jenkins later declined to make an unless order, gave the claimant further time and warned that the case could be struck out if it was not actively pursued. By the December 2022 hearing the claimant still had not provided the further particulars or a schedule of loss, and had not supplied medical evidence when asked to do so if she wished to rely on ill-health.

Judge Moore accepted that there had been no deliberate or wilful default, but held that the claimant remained in breach of the order for further particulars and that the respondent still did not know the case it had to meet on the disability discrimination and equal pay claims. The tribunal noted that the discrimination allegations lacked dates, that the equal pay comparator had not been identified, and that time-limit issues were unresolved. It also noted that although the unfair dismissal claim was better understood by the respondent, it too had not been actively pursued.

Applying rule 37 and considering proportionality under the overriding objective, the tribunal concluded that there was no prospect of a fair trial in the foreseeable future, if at all, and that the point of no return had been reached. All of the claims were therefore struck out.

Claims and outcomes

6 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal said the respondent understood the case on this claim, but struck it out because the claim had not been actively pursued and there was no prospect of a fair hearing in the foreseeable future.	Struck out	—	—
Disability discrimination	Direct disability discrimination was struck out for non-compliance with the order to provide further particulars, including the dates of the alleged acts; the tribunal also noted time-limit uncertainty.	Struck out	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The claim for discrimination arising from disability (s.15) was struck out on the same basis as the other disability discrimination claims: further particulars remained outstanding and the respondent did not know the case it had to meet.	Struck out	Disability	—
Disability discrimination	The reasonable adjustments claim was struck out with the other discrimination claims because the claimant had not provided the further particulars required to identify the issues and dates.	Struck out	Disability	—
Equal pay	The tribunal said the claimant had not clarified the comparator for the equal pay claim, described in the pleading as 'the gentleman who worked in the Scottish Mill', and the further particulars order remained unfulfilled.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.