Case 2200462/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Bennett v The Imperial Arms Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200462/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Klimov
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Bennett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 20 December 2023 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply.
Employment Judge Klimov was satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 applied and that strike-out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was struck out because it had been dormant for some considerable time and the claimant had not responded to the warning or otherwise indicated that she wished to pursue it.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The listing categories identify breach of contract, but the judgment does not provide further detail about the pleaded claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The listing categories identify Working Time Regulations, but the judgment does not provide further detail about the pleaded claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.