Case 2204052/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Merrigan v Cancer Research UK — 2021
- Case reference
- 2204052/2020
- Decision date
- 5 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Merrigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss J Merrigan's claim against Cancer Research UK was struck out under rule 37(1)(d). The tribunal recorded that she failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 28 July 2021 without explanation or notice and also failed to comply with the tribunal's orders dated 14 June 2021 and 30 July 2021.
By letter dated 31 July 2021, the tribunal warned the claimant that it was considering striking out the claim because it was not being actively pursued. She was invited to make representations or request a hearing by 14 August 2021 and was warned that if she did not respond the claim would be struck out without further notice. The claimant did not reply, so the tribunal struck out the claim and recorded that the preliminary hearing listed for 5 November 2021 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out in the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d); the judgment does not determine the merits of this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Listed by GOV.UK as a Health & Safety claim category; the judgment itself strikes out the claim in its entirety and does not reach the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out in the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d); the judgment does not determine the merits of this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out in the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d); the judgment does not determine the merits of this complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out in the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(d); the judgment does not determine the merits of this complaint. | 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.