Case 2200814/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Campbell v Muse Fashion Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2200814/2024
- Decision date
- 29 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Annand Representation
- Venue
- Central London
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Campbell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought a claim against the Respondent for £1,867.55 in respect of outstanding final-month wages, holiday pay and a redundancy payment, together with sums for stress and inconvenience. Neither party attended the hearing on 3 May 2024. Following a series of unanswered communications from the Tribunal and a Strike Out Warning issued on 29 April 2024, Employment Judge Annand struck the claim out in its entirety.
The Judge found under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 that the claim had not been actively pursued: the Claimant had failed to respond to Tribunal correspondence and did not attend the hearing, despite confirming by telephone on 1 May 2024 that she wished to continue. The Judge also found under Rule 37(1)(a) that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, because the Claimant had confirmed she had received the £1,867.55 she was owed (albeit seven months late) and the Tribunal has no power to award damages for stress and inconvenience on a claim of this type.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim for outstanding wages forming part of the £1,867.55 claimed. Struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) (not actively pursued) and Rule 37(1)(a) (no reasonable prospects of success); the Claimant confirmed she had already been paid the sum claimed. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Holiday pay element of the £1,867.55 claimed. Struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 37(1)(a); Claimant confirmed she had been paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Redundancy payment element of the £1,867.55 claimed. Struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 37(1)(a); Claimant confirmed she had been paid. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Working time element identified from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment groups all monetary claims within the £1,867.55 figure and strikes them out under Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Breach of contract element identified from the gov.uk listing categories; struck out alongside the other monetary claims under Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 37(1)(a). The Claimant also sought sums for stress and inconvenience, which the Tribunal noted it had no power to award on a claim of this type. | Struck out | — | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £0
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.