Case 2302594/2018 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Mrs C Beamish (Solicitor) — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302594/2018
- Decision date
- 8 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 8 October 2019 at London South Employment Tribunal, Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sat alone and considered an application by the Respondent in the Claimant's absence from the full merits hearing. The Tribunal recorded that the Claimant had not attended and that the Respondent was represented by Mrs C Beamish, solicitor.
The Tribunal struck out all claims under case number 2302594/2018 under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The reasons given were that the Claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim, engaging Rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d). The written record also notes that reasons were given orally 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not itemise individual claims, but states that all claims under this case number were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment does not itemise individual claims, but states that all claims under this case number were struck out. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The written judgment does not itemise individual claims, but states that all claims under this case number were struck out. | 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.