Case 2303590/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Kimberley Lamont Reference number 2303590-2022 v Louis Brown — 2025
- Case reference
- 2303590/2022
- Decision date
- 7 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Braganza KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kimberley Lamont Reference number 2303590-2022
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a Case Management Order dated 25 April 2023, Employment Judge Braganza KC directed Ms Kimberley Lamont to tell the tribunal by 2 May 2023 whether she intended to proceed with her claim against Mr Louis Brown and, if so, to provide specific details of her unpaid wages and holiday pay claim. No communication was received from the claimant in response to that order.
The tribunal found that Ms Lamont was no longer actively pursuing the claim and that her failure to comply with the order amounted to non-compliance with a tribunal order within rule 38(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024. Judge M Aspinall, sitting alone as an Employment Judge, therefore struck out the claim in its entirety under rule 38(1). No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment did not determine the merits of this head of claim; the claim was struck out in its entirety because the claimant did not comply with the Case Management Order dated 25 April 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment did not determine the merits of this head of claim; the claim was struck out in its entirety because the claimant did not comply with the Case Management Order dated 25 April 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 38(1) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024
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.