Case 2307847/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Wood v Coldrum Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2307847/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Barker Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Wood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 3 February 2021, the tribunal gave Ms A Wood an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success. The tribunal recorded that Ms Wood failed to make representations, or failed to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Barker struck out the claim. The judgment states that the hearing fixed for 15 September 2021 would not take place. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The judgment text does not separately identify individual heads of claim, but the gov.uk listing categories for this case are breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The judgment text does not separately identify individual heads of claim, but the gov.uk listing categories for this case are breach of contract and unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- no reasonable prospect of success
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.