Case 1602770/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Gayle v PSL2021 Realisations Ltd (in administration) and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 1602770/2020
- Decision date
- 30 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Gayle
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that, by a letter dated 3 May 2022, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separately enumerate this claim, but the gov.uk listing categorises the case as including breach of contract. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not separately enumerate this claim, but the gov.uk listing categorises the case as including disability discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not separately enumerate this claim, but the gov.uk listing categorises the case as including sex discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately enumerate this claim, but the gov.uk listing categorises the case as including unlawful deduction from wages. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The gov.uk listing refers to written pay statement. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.