Case 2300618/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. C. Martin v Gorillas Technologies UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300618/2022
- Decision date
- 3 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. C. Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 15 April 2024, Employment Judge Aspinall ordered the claimant to demonstrate and confirm compliance with Orders 67 to 73 made by EJ Fowell on 8 January 2024, and to confirm that she was in the process of complying with the remaining orders. The claimant was warned that if she did not respond as directed, or had not in fact complied, the tribunal would consider striking out her claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant did not comply with the 15 April 2024 order. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under Rule 37(b), (c) and (d) on the basis that the claimant had behaved or conducted the litigation in a way which was unreasonable or vexatious, had failed to comply with a tribunal instruction or order, and had failed to actively pursue her claims.
The final hearing listed for 14 to 17 May 2024 was vacated. The judgment text refers to the claimant having failed to comply with the orders made on 15 April 2022, which appears inconsistent with the earlier reference to 15 April 2024; the strike-out decision itself is recorded as dated 2 May 2024 and sent to the parties on 3 May 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claims in the extracted text; it records only that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(b), (c) and (d) for non-compliance and failure to actively pursue the claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(b), (c) and (d) Employment Tribunals 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.