Case 2400111/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Coleman v Sefton MBC, and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400111/2021
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms C Coleman
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to Ms C Coleman on 30 October 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing for that purpose, but no reply was received.
Employment Judge M Butler was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment states that this was because the claim had not been actively pursued. The claim was therefore struck out by judgment dated 20 November 2025 and sent to the parties on 25 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type; it only records that the claim was struck out under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.