Case 2416914/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Miss H Staunton Mr R Yates Mrs R Yates v Corks Out (Stockton Heath) Limited (In Creditors’ Voluntary Liquidation) — 2020
- Case reference
- 2416914/2018
- Decision date
- 5 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss H Staunton Mr R Yates Mrs R Yates
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a judgment on the respondent's response, not a merits decision on the underlying claims. In the consolidated cases of Miss H Staunton, Mr R Yates and Mrs R Yates against Corks Out (Stockton Heath) Limited (in creditors' voluntary liquidation), Employment Judge Horne recorded that by letter dated 4 February 2020 the Tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the response. The judgment also recorded that the respondent would remain entitled to notice of future hearings and decisions, but could only take part in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the respondent's response for failure to actively pursue it after a letter dated 4 February 2020. It does not record any substantive determination of the underlying claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.