Case 2207564/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Han (litigant in person, not attending) For the v Miss J. Veimou (Consultant) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2207564/2022
- Decision date
- 22 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Han (litigant in person, not attending) For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing in London Central on 7 June 2023 before Employment Judge Gidney, the tribunal considered the claimant's disability discrimination claim and her claim for breach of regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations. The claimant was a litigant in person and did not attend. The respondent was represented by a litigant consultant.
The tribunal struck out both claims under Rule 37(1)(c)-(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The reasons given were that there had been non-compliance with the orders of Employment Judge Walker dated 22 February 2022 and that the claims were not being actively pursued. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would only be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out pursuant to Rule 37(1)(c)-(d) for non-compliance with Employment Judge Walker's orders dated 22 February 2022 and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | Pleaded as a breach of regulation 12 of the Working Time Regulations. Struck out pursuant to Rule 37(1)(c)-(d) for non-compliance with Employment Judge Walker's orders dated 22 February 2022 and because the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c)-(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.