Case 2409415/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Hamid v Wigan Council Orian Solutions Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2409415/2021
- Decision date
- 20 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Hamid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 28 October 2025 the Tribunal wrote to Ms C Hamid warning that it was considering strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claims appeared not to have been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why strike out should not follow or to request a hearing, but the claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge M Butler was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds were made out and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment therefore records that the claims were struck out. No findings on the merits of the underlying claims, and no monetary award, were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | Underlying claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing for this decision; the judgment text itself only records that the claims were struck out for non-pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing for this decision; the judgment text itself only records that the claims were struck out for non-pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.