Case 2500991/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Miss V JOHNSON v Amazon UK Services Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500991/2025
- Decision date
- 20 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Legard
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss V JOHNSON
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 22 July 2025 the tribunal wrote to the claimant warning that it was considering striking out the claims under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because they appeared not to have been actively pursued. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why strike-out should not follow, or to request a hearing, but did not reply.
Judge Legard was satisfied that the grounds for strike-out under Rule 38 applied and that strike-out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment therefore struck out the claims in case numbers 2500991/2025 and 2500992/2025, approved on 20 August 2025. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action for this case number; it records that the claims in 2500991/2025 and 2500992/2025 were struck out under Rule 38 because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action for this case number; it records that the claims in 2500991/2025 and 2500992/2025 were struck out under Rule 38 because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 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.