Case 2400113/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms T Lysaght & others (see attached schedule) v Sefton MBC & others (see attached schedule) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400113/2021
- Decision date
- 19 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms T Lysaght & others (see attached schedule)
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 October 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the claimants warning that it was considering striking out the claims because they appeared not to have been actively pursued, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The letter gave the claimants an opportunity to explain why the claims should not be struck out, or to request a hearing for that purpose.
The claimants did not reply. The Employment Judge was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment therefore records that the claims were struck out. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge M Butler on 17 November 2025 and sent to the parties on 19 November 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The extracted judgment disposes of the consolidated claims collectively under Rule 38 and does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type; the classification is taken from the case context/listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment disposes of the consolidated claims collectively under Rule 38 and does not set out separate merits findings for this claim type; the classification is taken from the case context/listing category. | 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.