Case 2202091/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Thomas v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — 2020
- Case reference
- 2202091/2019
- Decision date
- 7 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that an order sent to the parties on 20 November 2019 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant was ordered to write to the tribunal by 4pm on 3 December 2019.
The claimant did not make written representations explaining why the claim should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out, and the hearing listed for 3 to 7 February 2020 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The gov.uk listing category refers to Public Interest Disclosure; the judgment itself states the claim was struck out and does not separately describe this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category refers to Unfair Dismissal; the judgment itself states the claim was struck out and does not separately describe this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing category refers to Unlawful Deduction from Wages; the judgment itself states the claim was struck out and does not separately describe this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing category refers to Working Time Regulations; the judgment itself states the claim was struck out and does not separately describe this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.