Case 2401720/2023 · Employment Tribunal
The Personal Representatives of the late Mrs N Holden v AstraZeneca UK Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2401720/2023
- Decision date
- 14 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
The Personal Representatives of the late Mrs N Holden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment records that letters dated 7 November 2024 and 6 January 2025 gave the personal representatives of the late Mrs N Holden an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, about why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
No reply was received. Regional Employment Judge Franey therefore struck out the claim under Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the short judgment does not set out claim-specific reasoning. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the short judgment does not set out claim-specific reasoning. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the short judgment does not set out claim-specific reasoning. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.