Case 2307051/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E Lake v Hollingbourne Primary, and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307051/2020
- Decision date
- 18 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
3 namedClaimant
E Lake
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. It recorded that, by letter dated 8 July 2025, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. On that basis, the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The sex discrimination classification is taken from the listing category/context rather than detail in the judgment text. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The unlawful deduction from wages classification is taken from the listing category/context rather than detail in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The working time classification is taken from the listing category/context rather than detail in the judgment 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.