Case 2408551/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss SK Miah v Reassured Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2408551/2022
- Decision date
- 12 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss SK Miah
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy case management orders dated 27 July 2023, the tribunal gave Miss SK Miah an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing explaining why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The reasons recorded that the parties had been notified of a telephone hearing on 19 July 2023, the respondent reminded the claimant on 17 July 2023, and the tribunal sent a further reminder on 18 July 2023.
The claimant did not connect to the telephone hearing and did not contact the tribunal to explain her absence. The respondent’s representative told Employment Judge Horne that the claimant had not made contact with the respondent since April 2023. The tribunal clerk tried to telephone the claimant during the hearing, but the number provided in the claim form was not recognised, and an e-mail was then sent with a further opportunity to join. The claimant did not connect when the hearing re-started at 2.45pm.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had failed to make written representations or request a hearing despite being invited to do so, and had made no or no further contact with the tribunal. The judgment therefore states that the claim is struck out. The hearing listed for 10, 11 and 12 July 2024 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states only that 'the claim is struck out' because it had not been actively pursued. It does not identify the underlying claim types in this decision. | 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.