Case 2305548/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Colleen Withey v St Margarets C of E Junior Academy and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305548/2020
- Decision date
- 26 May 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Employment
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Colleen Withey
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Colleen Withey's claim against St Margarets C of E Junior Academy and Medway Anglian Schools Trust. The judgment did not determine the merits of the individual allegations or record any remedy.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 21 February 2026, warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued. The letter allowed the claimant to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not reply, and the Tribunal therefore struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately identify or determine the pleaded allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately identify or determine the pleaded allegations. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately identify or determine the pleaded allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately identify or determine the pleaded allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.