Case 1801791/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Wright v Minster Law Solicitors — 2020
- Case reference
- 1801791/2019
- Decision date
- 18 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 8 June 2020, Employment Judge Rostant, sitting alone by telephone, considered whether the claimant had complied with earlier orders requiring disclosure of documents and a schedule of loss. The judgment records that the claimant had been given repeated opportunities to comply, including a further order made on 18 February 2020 and an Unless Order of 2 April 2020 requiring compliance by 16 April 2020. The claimant said she had updated her schedule of loss, but the tribunal found that she still had not provided copies of documents to the respondent and had not copied compliance to the Tribunal.
The tribunal framed the issue as whether there had been substantial compliance with its orders. It cited Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefala and asked whether there had been non-compliance in a material respect. The judge held that there had been material non-compliance with both the document order and the requirement to copy compliance to the Tribunal. The judgment therefore confirms that the claim stood struck out on 17 April 2020. No substantive merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded causes of action. It records that the case was struck out after the claimant failed to comply with case-management orders requiring a schedule of loss, copies of documents, and confirmation of compliance to the Tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- substantial compliance
- Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefala [2007] EWCA Civ 463
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.