Case 2305748/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M D Anrango Ruiz v Barrafina Borough Yards Ltd and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2305748/2023
- Decision date
- 24 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Abbott Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M D Anrango Ruiz
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy an order dated 17 September 2024, the tribunal directed Ms M D Anrango Ruiz to confirm by 3 October 2024 whether she intended to pursue her claim against either or both respondents and to provide contact details. The order warned that non-compliance might lead to strike out on the basis that the claim was not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not comply with that order. Employment Judge Abbott Date was satisfied that the claim was not being actively pursued and therefore struck it out under rule 37. The hearing listed for 8 to 11 April 2025 will not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not separately analyse this pleaded claim; the case was struck out as a whole under rule 37 for failure to comply with the tribunal's order and non-pursuit. The Layer 1 listing identified sex discrimination as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately analyse this pleaded claim; the case was struck out as a whole under rule 37 for failure to comply with the tribunal's order and non-pursuit. The Layer 1 listing identified unfair dismissal as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.