Case 2411188/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Smith v Layton Hill Nursery — 2021
- Case reference
- 2411188/2019
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a preliminary hearing in Manchester on 18 November 2020 before Employment Judge Rice-Birchall. The claimant, Mrs K Smith, did not attend. The respondent, Layton Hill Nursery, attended through Mrs Bridge, accompanied by her son, Mr Bridge.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 for failure to pursue the claims. The reasons given were that the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing and that none of the case management orders set out in the case management summary from the preliminary hearing on 10 December 2019 had been complied with.
No monetary remedy was awarded. The written record notes that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the substantive legal type of claim(s); it states only that the claimant's claims were struck out for failure to pursue them under rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.