Case 1601688/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Rees, Miss C Jones, Miss S Hanney Miss S Hanney & Miss T Morgan v Cosmetics4u UK Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1601688/2018
- Decision date
- 21 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Rees, Miss C Jones, Miss S Hanney Miss S Hanney & Miss T Morgan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 31 January 2020, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or 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, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claims under rule 37.
The decision does not record any substantive findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded claims. It is a procedural strike-out judgment only, and no compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim type in the reasons, but the case listing for this matter identified breach of contract as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim type in the reasons, but the case listing for this matter identified unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.