Case 2414742/2019 · Employment Tribunal
did not attend For the v Ms H Marsland (solicitor) Ms K Dennis (solicitor) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2414742/2019
- Decision date
- 25 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
did not attend For the
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 12 January 2021, heard by CVP in Manchester, the claimant did not attend and gave no explanation. The case had already been case managed at a preliminary hearing on 12 March 2020, when it was listed for a full merits hearing on 27, 28 and 29 January 2021, and on 12 August 2020 the Tribunal had noted that the claimant had supplied further information only to the Tribunal, not to the respondent, before varying the outstanding case management orders.
The respondent applied for strike out on 16 September 2020 and again on 25 November 2020. Employment Judge Johnson rejected the respondent's Rule 37(1)(a) argument that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success, saying there was enough in the claimant's further information to indicate potential age and race discrimination claims. However, the Tribunal held that the claimant had failed to comply with case management order 4.1 and, more importantly, had not actively pursued the proceedings within Rule 37(1)(d), so the claim was struck out and the merits hearing was postponed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal said the claimant's further information potentially showed an age discrimination claim, but the claim was struck out because she failed to comply with case management order 4.1 and failed to actively pursue the case. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal said the claimant's further information potentially showed a race discrimination claim, but the claim was struck out because she failed to comply with case management order 4.1 and failed to actively pursue the case. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 2
- Rule 37(1)(a)
- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 38(1)
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.