Case 2306434/2020 · Employment Tribunal
T Brookbank v Claremont Primary School Kent County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306434/2020
- Decision date
- 12 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
2 namedClaimant
T Brookbank
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 8 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 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not record any substantive reply or hearing request from the claimant.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to make representations in writing, or had failed to make any sufficient representations, explaining why strike-out should not follow. The claim was therefore struck out, and the decision was approved by Employment Judge Andrews on 12 August 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment itself does not break the claim out by cause of action; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The judgment records a strike-out of the claim as a whole because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment itself does not break the claim out by cause of action; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The judgment records a strike-out of the claim as a whole because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment itself does not break the claim out by cause of action; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The judgment records a strike-out of the claim as a whole because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.