Case 2500745/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss K O'Neill v The Secretary of State for Justice — 2019
- Case reference
- 2500745/2019
- Decision date
- 6 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss K O'Neill
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 9 November 2019 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The hearing listed for 9 March 2020 was therefore cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued; the specific claim type is taken from the supplied listing categories rather than detailed reasoning in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued; the specific discrimination claim type is taken from the supplied listing categories rather than detailed reasoning in the judgment text. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued; the specific claim type is taken from the supplied listing categories rather than detailed reasoning in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.