Case 1811404/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Hawkins v R1: Mr John Lingard R2: Mr John Lingard c/o Sharlston Rovers ARLFC R3: Ms S Davies c/o Sharlston Rovers ARLFC — 2019
- Case reference
- 1811404/2018
- Decision date
- 17 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rostant Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Hawkins
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural strike-out judgment dated 17 July 2019. By a letter dated 23 May 2019, the tribunal gave the respondents an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the response should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The respondents did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the response on behalf of all three respondents under rule 37.
The judgment records that the respondents would still be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the response on behalf of all three respondents under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. This was a procedural strike-out of the response, not a merits determination of the substantive claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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
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.