Case 2301306/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Smith v AC&AA Ltd t-a Betterclean Services - Maidstone & Medway — 2024
- Case reference
- 2301306/2023
- Decision date
- 17 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robinson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Smith
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss N Smith submitted her claim form on 23 March 2023 but, after that date, made no contact with the Tribunal or the Respondent. She failed to comply with the 2 October 2023 case management orders and did not attend the 17 April 2024 video hearing before Employment Judge Robinson.
The judgment records that she had already been warned, both in the case management orders and in a Tribunal letter dated 12 January 2024, that her claims might be struck out if she did not actively pursue them. In light of her failure to progress the case or attend the hearing, the Tribunal found it necessary and proportionate to strike out the claims entirely.
The claims were struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because they had not been actively pursued. No remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the judgment itself does not specify the individual claim labels. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the judgment itself does not specify the individual claim labels. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Claim type inferred from the case listing categories supplied in the case context; the judgment itself does not specify the individual claim labels. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of The 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.