Case 2403139/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss U Johnson v Utility Bidder Limited; and 8 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403139/2022
- Decision date
- 22 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross’ Case
Parties
10 namedClaimant
Miss U Johnson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 23 August 2023 and earlier case management orders made by Employment Judge Ross on 3 April 2023. The reasons state that the claimant had not complied and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
By a letter dated 23 August 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal found that she failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
As a result, the tribunal struck out the claim and confirmed that the hearing listed for 8 to 12 April 2024 would not go ahead. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment refers only to 'the claim' being struck out and does not separately distinguish the race discrimination allegation; race is taken from the case listing category. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers only to 'the claim' being struck out and does not separately distinguish the unfair dismissal allegation; the outcome recorded here follows the case listing category. | 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.