Case 1601766/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Barugh v Forest Gate Healthcare Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1601766/2020
- Decision date
- 5 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Davies Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Barugh
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 14 February 2021, the Tribunal gave Miss L Barugh an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason identified was that she had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 1 December 2020 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37.
The hearing listed for 5 March 2021 did not take place. No substantive findings were made on the age discrimination or unlawful deduction from wages allegations, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not set out the substantive age discrimination allegations; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for failure to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 1 December 2020 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the substantive wages allegations; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for failure to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 1 December 2020 and because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.