Case 2300255/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs S Khan-Naguthney v Omnitude Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300255/2020
- Decision date
- 17 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tsamados
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs S Khan-Naguthney
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mrs S Khan-Naguthney's claim against Omnitude Ltd. The judgment records that, by a letter dated 5 April 2022, 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 had not been actively pursued, noting that no responses had been received to the Tribunal's letter of 2 March 2021.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The judgment also records that no response had been received to correspondence including the strike-out warning letter dated 5 April 2022. The claim was therefore struck out. No remedy was awarded or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; it does not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; it does not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; it does not separately analyse this claim type. | 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.