Case 2204761/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Saxby v Moonbug Entertainment Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2204761/2021
- Decision date
- 28 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Saxby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 20 April 2022, the Tribunal warned Ms Saxby that Employment Judge E Burns was considering striking out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant was invited to object by email by 4 pm on 26 April 2022 and was also offered the opportunity to attend a hearing for that purpose.
Before that letter was sent, the claimant had failed to attend a case management hearing, had not complied with case management orders, and had not responded to earlier tribunal correspondence. The judgment records that she had at one point indicated an intention to apply for a stay, but had not provided the evidence requested in support of that application.
As at 28 April 2022, the claimant had not responded to the warning letter. Employment Judge E Burns therefore struck out the case under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it was not being actively pursued. The hearings listed for 29 April 2022 and 29 to 30 June 2022 were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim(s); it records only that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.