Case 2419118/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Hayward & others (see attached schedule) v St Helens Council — 2025
- Case reference
- 2419118/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Hayward & others (see attached schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 11 November 2025 the tribunal wrote to the claimants warning that it was considering striking out the claims under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claims appeared not to have been actively pursued. The claimants were given an opportunity to explain why strikeout should not follow, or to request a hearing on the issue.
No response was received. Employment Judge M Butler was satisfied that the grounds for strikeout under Rule 38 applied and that strikeout was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 because the claims had not been actively pursued. The claims in the listed case numbers were therefore struck out. The judgment was approved on 28 November 2025 and sent to the parties on 3 December 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | The extracted reasons do not state the substantive statutory basis for the claim. This claim type is inferred from the case listing context supplied with the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted reasons do not state the substantive statutory basis for the claim. This claim type is inferred from the case listing context supplied with the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the 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.