Case 2306330/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E Whyte v Folkestone, St Martins Church Of England Primary School Kent County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306330/2020
- Decision date
- 18 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Whyte
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim in case 2306330/2020. Its reasons state that by letter dated 14 July 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. The short judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not set out the underlying substantive allegations; it records only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued, after a letter dated 14 July 2025 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out the underlying substantive allegations; it records only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued, after a letter dated 14 July 2025 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out the underlying substantive allegations; it records only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued, after a letter dated 14 July 2025 gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing. | 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.