Case 2305370/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. E Oddy v Pineapple Contracts Unlimited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305370/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. E Oddy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent applied for reconsideration of an oral decision made on 21 March 2025 refusing its application to strike out the claim. The strike out application had relied on alleged non-compliance with an order, lack of active pursuit, and the contention that a fair hearing was no longer possible.
The Respondent's reconsideration application relied on the Claimant not disclosing that she had been employed full time after leaving the Respondent, which it said called into question her stated inability to comply with case management directions due to health. The Claimant said she worked from home when well enough and could do familiar desk-based work but was too unwell to deal with the claim.
The tribunal considered that the Claimant should have more clearly explained her ability to work while also being unwell, but accepted that she had been very unwell during the past two years until very recently. The tribunal held that a fair hearing remained possible, refused reconsideration, and stated that the claim continues.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment is a reconsideration decision refusing the Respondent's application to reconsider refusal of strike out; it does not adjudicate the merits of the equal pay claim. | Other | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment is a reconsideration decision refusing the Respondent's application to reconsider refusal of strike out; it does not adjudicate the merits of the sex discrimination claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a reconsideration decision refusing the Respondent's application to reconsider refusal of strike out; it does not adjudicate the merits of the unfair dismissal claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(c)
- Rule 38(d)
- Rule 38(e)
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.