Case 2305567/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J K Scantlebury v Waitrose plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 2305567/2024
- Decision date
- 19 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J K Scantlebury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded that the claimant had been given an opportunity, by letter dated 13 September 2024, to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out.
The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Orders dated 13 September 2024 and 14 January 2025, and that the claim had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out, but does not analyse this claim type separately. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out, but does not analyse this claim type separately. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim is struck out, but does not analyse this claim type separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim is struck out, but does not analyse this claim type separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim is struck out, but does not analyse this claim type separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim is struck out, but does not analyse this claim type separately. | 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.