Case 2300995/2018 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Miss T Bergqvist Paulusson (2) Mr D Hays v The Ellsmere Hotel — 2020
- Case reference
- 2300995/2018
- Decision date
- 23 January 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Miss T Bergqvist Paulusson (2) Mr D Hays
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were presented on 20 March 2018 after a period of early conciliation. The Tribunal recorded that the claim form appeared to include matters outside its jurisdiction, including personal injury and forced labour, and that there also appeared to be a wages claim. No response to the claims was ever presented by the Respondent.
A one-hour unopposed hearing listed for 29 January 2019 to determine merits and remedy did not proceed because none of the parties attended. The Tribunal postponed that hearing, wrote to the Claimants about the need to attend when the case was relisted, and noted that the identity of the Claimants' employer still had not been clarified. The First Claimant later emailed asking how to apply for a telephone hearing, but did not explain the earlier non-attendance.
The case remained inactive until it was referred back to a judge in August 2019. The Tribunal then listed a case management hearing for 23 January 2020 and warned that it would consider strike out if the Claimants did not attend and were not actively pursuing the claim. No-one attended the relisted hearing and there had been no communication from the Claimants since 30 January 2019. Employment Judge Ferguson therefore struck out the claims under Rules 37 and 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not identify separate claim heads with precision. It said the claim form appeared to include matters over which the Tribunal had no jurisdiction, including personal injury and forced labour, and also appeared to include a wages claim. The Tribunal struck out the claims without determining the merits because they were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rules 37 and 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.