Case 2406534/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Willcock v Ferret Live Productions CIC — 2023
- Case reference
- 2406534/2023
- Decision date
- 2 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Willcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing took place on 12 September 2023 and the claimant did not attend. By letter dated 12 September 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out for failure to pursue it actively.
A case management order sent to the parties on 2 October 2023 reminded them that the claim would be struck out if the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter. The claimant did not make representations in writing or request a hearing.
Applying rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Horne struck out the claim on 8 April 2024. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits and no award of remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not set out the underlying sex discrimination allegations. It records only that the claim was struck out under Rule 37 after the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's correspondence. The claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. It records only that the claim was struck out under Rule 37 after the claimant failed to pursue the case actively. The claim type is taken from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.