Case 2306904/2020 · Employment Tribunal
S Payne v Birchington Primary Kent County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2306904/2020
- Decision date
- 11 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Payne
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 14 July 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The written judgment does not contain any merits findings on the pleaded discrimination, unlawful deduction from wages, or working time complaints; it records only a procedural strike-out for non-pursuit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The written judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. This claim type is taken from the case listing and was not separately analysed in the PDF text. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. This claim type is taken from the case listing and was not separately analysed in the PDF text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The written judgment only states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. This claim type is taken from the case listing and was not separately analysed in the PDF text. | 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.