Case 2500227/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Coates v ABM Facilities Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500227/2022
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge AEPitt
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Coates
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 28 June 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints of unfair dismissal and bullying and harassment, not further identified under the Equality Act 2010, should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge AEPitt struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the bullying and harassment complaint in the judgment dated 14 July 2022. No liability findings or remedy awards were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the complaint after the claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out letter dated 28 June 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Harassment | Described in the reasons as bullying and harassment, not further identified under the Equality Act 2010; struck out for the same reasons as the unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- not actively pursued
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.