Case 1803747/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Howarth v The Chief Constable of West Yorkshire Police — 2021
- Case reference
- 1803747/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Maidment Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Howarth
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal refused the claimant's application dated 21 July 2021 for reconsideration of the judgment that had struck out the claim. It held there was no reasonable prospect of the original decision being varied or revoked because reconsideration was not in the interests of justice.
The reasons for strike out were that the claimant had not provided information required by the tribunal's order of 25 January 2021, despite further correspondence on 6 May 2021, a strike out warning on 14 June, and a further opportunity given on 6 July with a deadline of 16 July. The tribunal recorded that the claimant explained difficulties on 20 June but did not address the required information.
In refusing reconsideration, the tribunal found that the claimant still had not provided the required information, had produced no medical evidence or specifics showing inability to respond to the orders, and had given no indication of when she might be fit to participate. It concluded that, almost 13 months after presentation of the complaint, there had been no material progress in understanding the claims being brought and there had been a failure to engage with the case.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment concerns refusal of reconsideration after the claim was struck out for failure to comply with tribunal orders and to actively pursue the case. It does not clearly identify the substantive causes of action within the struck-out claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 72
- interests of justice
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.