Case 2305951/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs Anoma Sugunasingha v Haslemere Primary School and 2 others — 2026
- Case reference
- 2305951/2024
- Decision date
- 8 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mrs Anoma Sugunasingha
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mrs Anoma Sugunasingha's claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal had written to her on 2 June 2026 because she had not complied with its order dated 1 December 2025 and the claim had not been actively pursued. She did not respond to the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or request a hearing to do so.
Regional Employment Judge Khalil was satisfied that the grounds for strike-out applied and that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3 because a fair trial was not possible on the listed hearing dates. No claim was determined on its merits, no remedy was awarded, and the hearing listed for 9–12 June 2026 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out procedurally without a determination on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claim was struck out procedurally without a determination on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The claim was struck out procedurally without a determination on its merits. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.