Case 1603676/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Catterall Miss Z Hatch v Andrew Thorne — 2024
- Case reference
- 1603676/2024
- Decision date
- 30 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Catterall Miss Z Hatch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a record of preliminary hearing dated 24 October 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claims should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the claimants had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 24 October 2024 and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal recorded that the claimants failed to make representations in writing, failed to make any sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claims. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of any claim.
The judgment is a short procedural decision only. It records the strike out of the claims in cases 1603676/2024 and 1603677/2024 and does not record any award of compensation or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claims after the claimants did not comply with the Tribunal's order dated 24 October 2024 and did not actively pursue the matter. No merits findings are made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claims after the claimants did not comply with the Tribunal's order dated 24 October 2024 and did not actively pursue the matter. No merits findings are made. | 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.