Case 2407431/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Collins v Bright HR Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2407431/2023
- Decision date
- 14 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Collins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMs A Collins's claim against Bright HR Limited was listed for a public preliminary hearing at Liverpool by video on 5 February 2024 before Employment Judge Benson. After an earlier preliminary hearing on 23 October 2023, the claimant had been ordered to provide an explanation for her non-attendance and supporting material within 7 days and was warned that failure to comply with the case management orders or to actively pursue the claim could lead to strike out. The issues listed for the 5 February hearing included whether the claimant's ordinary unfair dismissal claim could proceed without two years' service, an amendment application, and whether she was a disabled person.
The claimant did not comply with the orders, sought a postponement shortly before the hearing on the basis of annual leave difficulties, but provided no supporting evidence when directed. She did not attend the 5 February hearing and gave no explanation. In her absence, the tribunal was satisfied that she had failed to comply with the orders made by Judges McDonald, Butler and Eeley and had not actively pursued the claim. The claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules 37(1)(c) and (d), and the hearing listed for 26 to 28 March 2025 was vacated. No remedy was awarded and the tribunal did not reach the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to the claimant's 'ordinary unfair dismissal' issue, but strikes the claim out under Employment Tribunal Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) before any merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The hearing issues included whether the claimant was a disabled person and any amendment to the claim, but the tribunal struck the claim out before deciding that issue. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Public interest disclosure claim taken from the gov.uk listing category/context. The judgment strikes out the claim in full under Employment Tribunal Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) and does not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rules 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rules 37(1)(d)
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.