Case 2406507/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms J Dunn v Matthew Gresty, Georgian Gates and Railings Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406507/2022
- Decision date
- 10 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms J Dunn
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Liverpool on 28 June 2023, Employment Judge Ainscough sat alone and considered the claimant's failure to attend the Case Management Preliminary Hearing on 24 March 2023. The tribunal had previously ordered the claimant to write by 1 May 2023 with a full explanation for her non-attendance and any supporting evidence of ill-health, and warned that a failure to respond could lead to strike out for not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not make any written representations and did not provide any explanation or evidence for her absence. On that basis, the tribunal held that the claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the pleaded claims; it deals only with strike out.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim is struck out'. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim is struck out'. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim is struck out'. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim is struck out'. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separate the pleaded heads of claim; it states only that 'the claim is struck out'. This claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing. | 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.