Case 2304601/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms P Gopal v London Borough of Croydon — 2020
- Case reference
- 2304601/2018
- Decision date
- 9 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms P Gopal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 17 April 2020 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim, and the hearing listed for 1 to 8 September 2020 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category Public Interest Disclosure; the judgment text itself does not set out the pleaded public interest disclosure claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category Unfair Dismissal; the judgment text itself does not set out the pleaded unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category Unlawful Deduction from Wages; the judgment text itself does not set out the pleaded wages claim. | 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.