Case 2301243/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Lutaya v Three C’s Support Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2301243/2023
- Decision date
- 13 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Lutaya
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 29 August 2023, the Tribunal gave Ms M Lutaya an opportunity to make written representations or to request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out because they had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims under rule 37. The judgment records that the hearing listed for 5 October 2023 and 17 November 2023 would not take place. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Case no. 2301243/2023 was struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal’s 29 August 2023 letter invited representations or a hearing on the basis that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The underlying claim type is not specified in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Case no. 2301249/2023 was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The underlying claim type is not specified in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Case no. 2301816/2023 was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The underlying claim type is not specified in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
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.