Case 2210081/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Capistrano v JD Wetherspoon — 2024
- Case reference
- 2210081/2023
- Decision date
- 30 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Capistrano
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant had consistently failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. The judgment records that the claimant repeatedly failed to provide a witness statement despite repeated warnings.
The tribunal had sent a letter on 28 October 2024 requiring the claimant to confirm by 4:00 pm on 29 October 2024 whether she had exchanged witness statements in accordance with directions given by Employment Judge E Burns in the Tribunal’s letter of 17 October 2024. The claimant had been warned that failure to provide her witness statement without good reason would result in strike out, but she did not respond.
The tribunal noted that a seven-day hearing was due to begin the following week and considered it appropriate to strike out the claim. No substantive liability findings or remedy assessment were made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a strike-out decision and does not identify the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted text. The only stated basis is repeated non-compliance with tribunal orders and a failure actively to pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.
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.