Case 2304921/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K Coles v Frys BBQ Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2304921/2021
- Decision date
- 20 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Balogun
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K Coles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 December 2022, the Tribunal warned Miss K Coles that the claim might be struck out because she had not complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 18 May 2022 and because the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant was given an opportunity to make representations by 16 December 2022.
On 31 January 2023 the claimant sent an email with attachments that the Tribunal could not open, and she was asked to resend them in word or PDF format. A further warning letter dated 24 March 2023 gave her until 7 April 2023 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not responding to the Tribunal’s email and for not actively pursuing the claim. She sent an email with an attachment on 30 March 2023, but the Tribunal said on 3 April 2023 that it did not comply with the order of 18 May 2022 or with the warning letter. There was no further correspondence or contact from the claimant, and Employment Judge Balogun struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on 20 April 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive legal cause of action; it records only that the claim was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.