Case 2402885/2021 · Employment Tribunal
C Hooi Pheng First v High Five UK Ltd Second Respondent: Ms Hui ‘Brenda’ Wang — 2022
- Case reference
- 2402885/2021
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Howard.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
C Hooi Pheng First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment, not a merits decision. By a Record of a Preliminary Hearing dated 9 May 2022, the Tribunal gave the first respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out because the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner and because the first respondent had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 14 September 2021 made by Employment Judge Howard.
The first respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Johnson therefore ordered that the first respondent's response be struck out. The judgment also recorded that the first respondent would remain entitled to notice of hearings and decisions, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. No substantive liability findings or monetary awards were recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a procedural decision striking out the first respondent's response. It does not determine the substantive employment claims on their merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious
- non-compliance with Tribunal order
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.