Case 2400471/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Aspey v HP Group UK — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400471/2022
- Decision date
- 8 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Aspey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Miss S Aspey's claim because it had not been actively pursued. By a letter dated 30 December 2022, the tribunal gave her an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing to explain why strike-out should not follow. The judgment records that she failed to make representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore ordered that the claim be struck out. It also recorded that the hearing listed for 13 to 15 February 2024 would not take place. The judgment contains no findings on the merits of the underlying claims and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states only that 'the claim is struck out' because it had not been actively pursued. The claim type is taken from the case listing/context rather than from the judgment text, which does not separately identify the pleaded claims. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that 'the claim is struck out' because it had not been actively pursued. The claim type is taken from the case listing/context rather than from the judgment text, which does not separately identify the pleaded claims. | 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.