Case 2501796/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Ms C Abraham & others (see below) v North Tyneside Council — 2020
- Case reference
- 2501796/2018
- Decision date
- 30 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robertson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms C Abraham & others (see below)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned Ms Christine Abraham and many other listed claimants against North Tyneside Council. Regional Employment Judge Robertson recorded that, by a letter dated 11 September 2020, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why their claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make representations and did not request a hearing. The judgment also recorded that the claimants had failed to take any steps to pursue their claims or indicate their intentions as to the claims. The Tribunal stated that it was not in the interests of justice for the claims to be allowed to drift.
The claims listed in the schedule, including case number 2501796/2018, were struck out under rule 37. The judgment did not record any monetary remedy, costs order, or substantive determination of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claims set out in the schedule were struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment text does not identify the substantive causes of action. | 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.