Case 2305458/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Donoghue v Strood Academy and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305458/2020
- Decision date
- 31 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms T Donoghue
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 19 January 2026 the tribunal wrote to Ms T Donoghue asking whether, in light of the outcome of the Harpur Trust litigation, she wished to pursue her claim or withdraw it. The letter was returned to the tribunal office because she was no longer at that address, and she had not provided an alternative correspondence address.
The tribunal concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing the proceedings. On that basis, Employment Judge Andrews struck out the claim on 31 March 2026. The extracted judgment records no substantive liability findings and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment struck out the claim as the claimant was not actively pursuing it. The PDF text does not separately set out substantive findings on this specific head, but the strike-out applied to the claim before the tribunal. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as the claimant was not actively pursuing it. No separate substantive determination on liability is set out in the extracted text. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim as the claimant was not actively pursuing it. The extracted text does not split outcomes by head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim as the claimant was not actively pursuing it. The extracted text does not split outcomes by head of 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.