Case 2209510/2023 · Employment Tribunal
S Byrne v The Feel Good Group Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2209510/2023
- Decision date
- 7 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh’s
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Byrne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 27 February 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it was not being actively pursued and/or because she had not complied with Tribunal orders. No response was received. The respondent renewed its application on 9 May 2024, saying the claimant had not attended the preliminary hearing on 27 February, had not responded to the Tribunal’s letter, and had not complied with case management orders; the claimant was copied into that correspondence.
The Tribunal wrote again on 10 May 2024 asking the claimant to respond to the renewed strike-out application by 17 May 2024. No response was received. Employment Judge Webster then struck out the claimant’s claim because she had not complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 27 February 2024 and the claim had not been actively pursued. The hearing fixed for 24 to 28 June 2024 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to the claim collectively and does not separate this issue, but the case listing categories identify disability discrimination as part of the proceedings. The claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers to the claim collectively and does not separate this issue, but the case listing categories identify a Working Time Regulations claim as part of the proceedings. The claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
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.