Case 2301349/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2301349/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 30 April 2021 at London South Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sat alone. The claimant did not attend, and the respondent was represented by Mr D Brown of counsel.
The written judgment states that the claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because they were not being actively pursued by the claimant. No findings on the merits of the underlying complaints were recorded in the written judgment.
No remedy was awarded. The note to the judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The short judgment does not list the individual heads of claim; this classification follows the case context/listing categories supplied for this case. The tribunal recorded that the claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because they were not being actively pursued by the claimant. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short judgment does not list the individual heads of claim; this classification follows the case context/listing categories supplied for this case. The tribunal recorded that the claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because they were not being actively pursued by the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The short judgment does not list the individual heads of claim; this classification follows the case context/listing categories supplied for this case. The tribunal recorded that the claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because they were not being actively pursued by the claimant. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.