Case 1806808/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Y Myatt v Poppies of Doncaster Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806808/2021
- Decision date
- 21 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Y Myatt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Ms Y Myatt’s claim against Poppies of Doncaster Limited. It did so after a case management order dated 27 May 2022, sent to the parties on 10 June 2022, gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The stated bases for potential strike out were that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably by or on behalf of the claimant, the claimant had not complied with the tribunal’s order, a deposit had not been paid, and the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Shepherd ordered that the claim be struck out on 21 June 2022. The judgment contains no substantive findings on the underlying breach of contract, sex discrimination, or unfair dismissal allegations, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the pleaded claims on their merits; it strikes out the claim as a whole after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the case management order. The text contains an apparent OCR error in one date reference ('27 May 200'), but later refers to 27 May 2022. | 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.