Case 2413679/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Davies v Christian James Antony Roddy and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413679/2023
- Decision date
- 26 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss M Davies
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 2 August 2024, the tribunal gave the first respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why its response should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The first respondent did not reply to that correspondence.
Employment Judge Childe struck out the first respondent's response under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d). The judgment states that, under rule 37(3), the effect is as if no response had been presented under rule 21. The order was made only in relation to the first respondent and does not affect the claimant's claim against CSG Realisations Ltd (in administration).
The judgment does not determine the merits of the claimant's complaints of unfair dismissal, pregnancy or maternity discrimination, sex discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, redundancy pay, or unlawful deduction from wages. It is a procedural order dealing with the first respondent's response rather than a substantive liability or remedy decision.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The first respondent's response to this complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The first respondent's response to this complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Sex discrimination | The first respondent's response to this complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | Sex | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The first respondent's response to this complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | Sexual orientation | — |
| Redundancy | The first respondent's response to this complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The first respondent's response to this complaint was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. |
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.