Case 2305685/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Amity College Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2305685/2019
- Decision date
- 5 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was submitted on 25 December 2019. The claimant gave both an email address and a London postal address, stated that her preferred method of communication was post, and a friend later wrote to the Tribunal on her behalf while she was in Algeria, confirming those contact details.
The Tribunal sent the notice of claim, directions and hearing to the postal address on 11 February 2020. It also wrote to the claimant at that address on 10 August 2020 asking about her ability to conduct the hearing by video link, but no reply was received. On 4 September 2020 the respondent applied for the claim to be struck out because of non-compliance with Tribunal orders, lack of active pursuit, and because a fair hearing was said to no longer be possible.
The hearing was postponed and the Tribunal later wrote to the claimant by email on 21 October 2020 requiring full written reasons why the claim should not be struck out and warning that, absent a reply by 12 November 2020, the claim would be struck out. No response was received. The judgment therefore records that the claim was struck out, with no monetary award made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive cause of action; it only records that the claim was struck out. | 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.