Case 2308935/2020 · Employment Tribunal
E Lalaki v Blean Primary School Kent County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2308935/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
E Lalaki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 23 June 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and also failed to request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The short judgment records no merits findings and no monetary remedy. It was approved by Employment Judge Andrews on 04 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The claim was struck out because the claimant did not make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, after the Tribunal's letter of 23 June 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out because the claimant did not make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, after the Tribunal's letter of 23 June 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The claim was struck out because the claimant did not make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, after the Tribunal's letter of 23 June 2025. | 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.