Case 2201189/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss SW Wright v Freshways Trading as Manchester Dairy Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2201189/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Isaacson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss SW Wright
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal issued a strike out judgment under rule 37. It recorded that the claimant, Miss SW Wright, had not complied with the Tribunal's orders dated 1 June 2020 and 15 July 2020. The judgment states that the claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, but no sufficient written representations were made and no hearing was requested.
The Tribunal therefore struck out all the claims. The judgment does not include any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims or any monetary remedy. It also records that any hearing listed would be vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | All claims were struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders dated 1 June 2020 and 15 July 2020. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | All claims were struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders dated 1 June 2020 and 15 July 2020. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | All claims were struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders dated 1 June 2020 and 15 July 2020. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. | 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.
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.