Case 2207871/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms I Small v Harrods Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207871/2022
- Decision date
- 9 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms I Small
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim on the basis that the claimant was not actively pursuing it. The respondent had informed the tribunal, with copies to the claimant, that there had been failures to comply with case management orders since March 2023. The claimant's representative had acknowledged that position, and partial disclosure was only provided on 19 and 24 May 2023, around two months late.
The tribunal recorded that the respondent had tried to contact the claimant's representative to agree a bundle but had received no further engagement, and it therefore applied to strike out the claim. By letter dated 13 July 2022, the tribunal invited the claimant's comments on the respondent's correspondence, but no response was received. The tribunal noted that no explanation had been provided for the ongoing non-compliance and no hearing had been sought to challenge the strike-out application.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim and cancelled the hearing that had been due to start on 27 September 2022.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for failure actively to pursue it. The underlying pleaded claim types are inferred from the gov.uk listing categories rather than set out in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not separately analyse this claim; it appears to have been struck out with the claim as a whole. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not separately analyse this claim; it appears to have been struck out with the claim as a whole. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately analyse this claim; it appears to have been struck out with the claim as a whole. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately analyse this claim; it appears to have been struck out with the claim as a whole. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not separately analyse this claim; it appears to have been struck out with the claim as a whole. Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories. |
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.