Case 2409400/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Rose v Dunelm (soft furnishings) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2409400/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Rose
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim form was presented on 22 November 2022. A preliminary hearing listed for 18 September 2023 had been adjourned to 7 May 2024, and the Tribunal recorded that there had been no communications from the claimant since issuing proceedings.
By letter dated 11 December 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The Tribunal then wrote again on 7 January 2024 with a copy of that letter and warned that, if there was no response or request for a hearing, the next step would be strike out.
The claimant did not make any written representations, did not request a hearing, and did not contact either the respondent or the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued over a period of 16 months and struck it out. The hearing fixed for 7 May 2024 will not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not identify the pleaded claims individually, but the gov.uk listing for the case records disability discrimination and unfair dismissal. The judgment states only that 'the claim' was struck out and does not separate outcomes by claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the pleaded claims individually, but the gov.uk listing for the case records unfair dismissal. The judgment states only that 'the claim' was struck out and does not separate outcomes by claim. | 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.