Case 2308988/2020 · Employment Tribunal
J Tonna v Lady Joanna Thornhill Endowed Primary School Kent County Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2308988/2020
- Decision date
- 4 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
J Tonna
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 23 June 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out for lack of active pursuit. The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment does not contain findings on the underlying merits of the pleaded causes of action, and it records no award of compensation or other remedy.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Andrews Date on 04 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | Struck out because the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant did not make representations in writing or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 23 June 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | Struck out because the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant did not make representations in writing or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 23 June 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | Struck out because the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant did not make representations in writing or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 23 June 2025. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant did not make representations in writing or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 23 June 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out because the claim had not been actively pursued; the claimant did not make representations in writing or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 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.