Case 2306510/2020 · Employment Tribunal
C Thompson v Eythorne Elvington Com Primary (comm) Kent County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306510/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Thompson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 16 July 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. The reasons do not address the merits of the underlying complaints or record any monetary remedy. The decision was approved by Employment Judge Andrews on 11 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment does not identify individual causes of action in the reasons and refers only to 'the claim'; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not identify individual causes of action in the reasons and refers only to 'the claim'; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify individual causes of action in the reasons and refers only to 'the claim'; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify individual causes of action in the reasons and refers only to 'the claim'; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. | 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.