Case 2300888/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Burden-Smith v Department for Work and Pensions — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300888/2023
- Decision date
- 8 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cawthray Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Burden-Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 30 April 2024. Tribunal staff telephoned her and were told she was working until 10.00pm and would not attend; the judge noted she had been sent notice of the hearing and had acknowledged earlier correspondence about the video hearing.
The respondent applied for strike out, relying on non-compliance with tribunal orders, lack of active pursuit, and time limit points. The tribunal did not treat the earlier strike out warning as having automatically struck out the claim and decided, on balance, not to strike out for non-compliance with an order.
The tribunal found that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to make representations, had not engaged with case preparation, had not complied with orders for documents and witness evidence, and had not explained her non-attendance or requested a postponement. It concluded that the claim had not been actively pursued and struck out the entire claim under Rule 37(1)(d). The tribunal did not determine the respondent's alternative time limit argument.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the entire claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment refers to disability issues requiring clarification if the claim continued, but does not determine the merits of any discrimination allegation. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(2)
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.