Case 1805643/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Clare Lee v Mr Kary Mahil — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805643/2020
- Decision date
- 4 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Drake
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Clare Lee
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 18 November 2020, the tribunal gave Clare Lee an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why case 1805643/2020 should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out that claim.
The same judgment also disposed of case 1804758/2020, recorded as Mr Kary Mahill v Clare Lee. That claim was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The extracted text contains no substantive findings on liability or any monetary award for either case.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recordedThis case has mixed outcomes under at least one legal claim type. A tribunal can uphold some allegations and dismiss others under the same legal head, so rows below may represent separate issues or allegation groups from the judgment.
| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action in the extracted text. In case 1805643/2020, the tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant failed to make representations or request a hearing after the 18 November 2020 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Case 1804758/2020, recorded as Mr Kary Mahill v Clare Lee, was dismissed on withdrawal by the claimant. The extracted text does not identify the substantive cause of action. | Withdrawn | — | — |
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.