Case 2303341/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Pruzhanskaya v Flex Legal R1 Maitland Walker LLP R2 Mischon de Reya LLP R3 — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303341/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Representation
- Venue
- Croydon via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Pruzhanskaya
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 18 July 2025 at Croydon via CVP, before Employment Judge Wright, the respondents' strike-out applications succeeded. R1 and R2's application under Rule 38(1)(b) and R3's application under Rule 38(1)(a) were both allowed, and the claim was struck out.
The claimant, Ms M Pruzhanskaya, appeared in person. R1 and R2 were represented by Mr D McCrum, solicitor, and R3 by Mr A Shellum, counsel. The written record does not set out substantive merits findings or any monetary award.
The judgment states that reasons were given orally at the hearing. It also records that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Agency worker regulations | The written judgment records that the claim was struck out. It does not set out separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The written judgment records that the claim was struck out. It does not set out separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The written judgment records that the claim was struck out. It does not set out separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment records that the claim was struck out. It does not set out separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(b)
- Rule 38(1)(a)
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.