Case 2301930/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Our Parks Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301930/2024
- Decision date
- 4 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing was listed for 15 January 2025. The claimant was notified by email on 29 April 2024, was told to send a completed hearing agenda seven days before the hearing, and was emailed the video login details on 14 January 2025. She did not attend the hearing. After the tribunal contacted her, she apologised for her non-attendance, said she had just seen the confirmation email sent the previous afternoon, and said she had suffered a family bereavement and was preoccupied with the arrangements.
Judge Ord held the preliminary hearing from 14:20 and, on her instruction, a letter was sent on 23 January 2025 saying the tribunal was considering striking out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant was invited to object or request a hearing within seven days, but she did not reply. Employment Judge K Andrews said that, although sympathetic to the bereavement, the claimant had an obligation to comply with tribunal directions, had been given ample notice of the hearing, and had failed to provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment therefore records that the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type(s) in the reasons; it records only that the claim was struck out because it was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.