Case 2307822/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v The Works Stores — 2022
- Case reference
- 2307822/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an open preliminary hearing on 21 July 2022. The claimant did not attend, had already failed to attend the previous preliminary hearing on 19 November 2021, had said by email that she did not intend to attend, and did not provide any written representations. The tribunal recorded that no substantive progress could be made in her absence and granted the respondent's strike-out application.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not materially complied with the Unless Order of 19 November 2021. It said she had not provided the information ordered, including dates, and in relation to the protected disclosure claim had not identified the matters required by paragraphs 15.3 and 15.4 of the order of 7 June 2021. The tribunal also noted that she had had the opportunity since 6 December 2021 to provide the outstanding information. As a result, the claim was struck out. In the alternative, the tribunal dismissed the claim under Rule 47 and Rule 37(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Open preliminary hearing; the tribunal struck out the claim as a whole for nonattendance and material non-compliance with an Unless Order. The reasons expressly mention an outstanding protected disclosure claim and failures to provide dates and particulars, but do not itemise every underlying head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.