Case 2501789/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs L Glover v Posstub Laundry — 2025
- Case reference
- 2501789/2024
- Decision date
- 17 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Appearances
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs L Glover
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs L Glover's hearing took place at Newcastle CFCTC on 17 April 2025 before Employment Judge Newburn. The claimant did not attend, and the hearing continued in her absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024 because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not identify any substantive findings on the underlying complaints.
No remedy was awarded, and the written record does not set out any claim-specific liability decision beyond the strike-out. The judgment was given orally at the hearing, with written reasons only to be provided if requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment says the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; it does not set out claim-by-claim findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment says the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; it does not set out claim-by-claim findings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment says the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; it does not set out claim-by-claim findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; it does not set out claim-by-claim findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment says the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; it does not set out claim-by-claim findings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment says the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued; it does not set out claim-by-claim findings. |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
- Rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 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.