Case 2303762/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Jeevakumar v Chattar Psal Singh Cheema — 2021
- Case reference
- 2303762/2018
- Decision date
- 18 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Jeevakumar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 10/12/2020, the tribunal gave Miss P Jeevakumar an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out. The stated bases were that the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 5/8/2019, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Wright struck out the claim in the judgment dated 18/3/2021. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 10/12/2020 to make written representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should not be struck out because the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 5/8/2019, and because the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make representations or to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. | 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.