Case 2303086/2015 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Innes v Wau Holdings Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2303086/2015
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Innes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Innes presented her claim on 14 November 2015, saying in box 8.1 that she was claiming a redundancy payment and arrears of pay. The tribunal wrote to her on 4 January 2016 explaining that redundancy pay requires two years' service and that, on the face of the form, she appeared to have less than two years' service. The respondent did not present a response and was dissolved on 29 December 2015.
In her email of 11 January 2016, the claimant said that although she had used redundancy terminology, she was actually claiming payment for her four-week notice period. The tribunal treated that as a claim that did not require two years' service and therefore could proceed in principle, subject to the status of the respondent company. The tribunal also informed her that the proceedings would be stayed for six months to allow for any application to restore the company to the register.
The matter was not referred back to a judge at the end of the stay and only returned to judicial attention in December 2019 after ACAS contacted the tribunal. Employment Judge Andrews held on 5 March 2020 that the claim should be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The judge noted that the tribunal had not contacted the claimant when it should have done in around July 2016, but concluded that her lack of further contact with the tribunal since then showed that she was not pursuing the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The ET1 said the claimant was seeking a redundancy payment and arrears of pay. In her 11 January 2016 email she clarified that she was in fact seeking payment for a four-week notice period. The tribunal did not determine the claim on the merits; it struck it out because it had not been actively pursued after the six-month stay. | 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.