Case 2402845/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Foster v Electricity North West Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2402845/2024
- Decision date
- 29 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cookson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Foster
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy order dated 27 November 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons recorded that she had failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 21 November 2024, had not contacted the Tribunal about her non-attendance, and had not responded to the Tribunal's messages or the clerk's attempts to communicate with her about that hearing.
The Tribunal also recorded that the claimant did not reply to the respondent's request dated 11 July 2024 for further and better particulars, did not heed Employment Judge Cookson's comments in the Tribunal's letter dated 16 August 2024, and took no action in response to the directions of Employment Judge Dunlop in the Tribunal's letter dated 17 October 2024. The Tribunal said it appeared that the claim was not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or any sufficient representations, in response to the strike-out warning and did not request a hearing. The judgment therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award or other remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Underlying complaint category is taken from the case listing; the reasons do not specify it separately. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | Underlying complaint category is taken from the case listing; the reasons do not specify it separately. | Struck out | Sex | — |
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.