Case 2300810/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kirsty Musk v The London Hair Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300810/2019
- Decision date
- 10 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Kirsty Musk
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal recorded that the respondent company, The London Hair Company, had been dissolved and that the claimant had not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies. The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type, but it records that the claim was before the tribunal and then considered for strike out.
On 31 July 2019 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No compensation or other remedy was awarded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action; it records only that the claim was struck out because the respondent company had been dissolved, the claimant had not applied to restore it to the register of companies, and the claimant failed to give an acceptable reason after being invited on 31 July 2019 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for non-pursuit. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.