Case 2307081/2020 · Employment Tribunal
L Walker v Otford Primary (comm), and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2307081/2020
- Decision date
- 7 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews
Parties
3 namedClaimant
L Walker
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment records that, by letter dated 8 July 2025, the claimant was 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The gov.uk listing categories indicate Part Time Workers, Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment does not separately identify or adjudicate distinct heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The gov.uk listing categories indicate Part Time Workers, Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment does not separately identify or adjudicate distinct heads of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The gov.uk listing categories indicate Part Time Workers, Unlawful Deduction from Wages and Working Time Regulations, but the judgment does not separately identify or adjudicate distinct heads of claim. | 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.