Case 1801889/2022 · Employment Tribunal
1. Olivia Bell 2. J L Burton v Mexi Bean Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1801889/2022
- Decision date
- 3 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
1. Olivia Bell 2. J L Burton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 22 August 2022, the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out. The stated reasons were the respondent's failure to comply with the Tribunal's order of 03 August 2022 and the fact that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The respondent did not reply to that letter, made no representations, and did not request a hearing. The Employment Judge recorded that the respondent had given no indication that it would comply with the Tribunal's orders or that it wished to pursue the claim. On that basis, the response was struck out.
The judgment also recorded that the respondent would be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The decision is procedural and does not record any determination of the substantive claims or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the respondent's response for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 03 August 2022 and failure to respond to the letter dated 22 August 2022. The judgment did not determine the substantive claims. | 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.