Case 2302350/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Heaney v Coolhurst Lawn Tennis and Squash Rackets Club — 2023
- Case reference
- 2302350/2021
- Decision date
- 1 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Beckett
- Panel members
- Ms A Sansome, Mr C Tansley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Heaney
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 31 January and 1 February 2023 before Employment Judge Beckett, sitting with Ms A Sansome and Mr C Tansley, the tribunal dealt with the Respondent's application to strike out the claim. The judgment records that the complaints of maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, race discrimination, unfair constructive dismissal and failure to provide written statement of particulars of employment were all struck out.
The tribunal struck the claims out under rule 37(1)(c) and rule 37(1)(d) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal Constitution (Rules and Procedure) Regulations 2013, on the basis that the Claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders and that the claims had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded because all pleaded claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Constructive dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Failure to provide written statement of particulars of employment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.