Case 2300475/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Citizens Advice Merton & Lambeth — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300475/2019
- Decision date
- 14 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim after the claimant failed to attend a telephone hearing on 16 June 2020, which had originally been listed as the first day of the full merits hearing and was converted because of the coronavirus pandemic. The reasons record that the claimant had been properly put on notice of both the original hearing and its conversion, and that Judge Wright ordered her to provide an explanation for her non-participation by 30 June 2020 with any relevant documents.
No response was received to that order or to a separate strike-out warning letter sent on 14 July 2020, which explained that the tribunal was considering striking out the claim because it was not being actively pursued and invited the claimant to object in writing or request a hearing by 21 July 2020. The respondent then applied on 28 July 2020 for the claims to be struck out, stating that its last correspondence from the claimant had been on 11 March 2020 and that attempts to contact her by email and telephone had been unsuccessful.
The tribunal wrote again on 14 August 2020, on the instruction of Judge Hyams-Parish, warning that it was considering striking out the claims for the reasons set out in the respondent’s letter and giving the claimant a further opportunity to provide written reasons by 21 August 2020. No reply was received. The tribunal therefore held that it was appropriate to strike out the claim pursuant to rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because it was no longer being actively pursued. The hearing listed for 12 to 16 July 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out because the claim was no longer being actively pursued, under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out because the claim was no longer being actively pursued, under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
| Trade union | Struck out because the claim was no longer being actively pursued, under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claim was no longer being actively pursued, under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.