Case 2306204/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms. S. Aksoy v Dnata Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306204/2023
- Decision date
- 23 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lumby
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms. S. Aksoy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims. The judgment records that, on 27 August 2024, specific orders were made in a case management order and the Claimant failed to comply with them.
Employment Judge Lumby issued a strike-out warning because the Claimant had failed to comply with the order and did not appear to be actively pursuing the claim. The Claimant did not comply with the order and did not respond to the strike-out warning.
The claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2024 because the Claimant had failed to comply with an instruction or order of the Tribunal and was not actively pursuing the claim. The final hearing listed for 3 to 6 June 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims are struck out. The specific claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category supplied in the case context, as the judgment text itself does not separately describe the pleaded claims. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims are struck out. The specific claim type and protected characteristic are taken from the gov.uk listing category supplied in the case context, as the judgment text itself does not separately describe the pleaded discrimination claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.