Case 2405377/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Gosling v Beverley Notman — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405377/2020
- Decision date
- 24 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Gosling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 1 July 2021, the tribunal gave Ms Gosling an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing explaining why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that she had failed to reply to the tribunal's correspondence of 15 December 2020, 5 January 2021 and 21 January 2021, had failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 1 July 2021, and had not contacted the tribunal to explain her non-attendance.
Employment Judge Batten recorded that the claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment is dated 19 August 2021 and was sent to the parties and entered on the register on 24 August 2021.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not identify the individual pleaded allegations, but the case context listed disability discrimination as a claim category. The tribunal struck out the claim after the claimant failed to respond to correspondence, failed to attend the preliminary hearing, and did not pursue the claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not set out a separate analysis of this category, but the case context listed unlawful deduction from wages as a claim category. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out a separate analysis of this category, but the case context listed working time as a claim category. The tribunal struck out the claim because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.