Case 2501879/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms N Ashley v Civil Nuclear Police Authority — 2026
- Case reference
- 2501879/2024
- Decision date
- 6 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Childe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms N Ashley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 19 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim. The warning was based on apparent non-compliance with Tribunal orders dated 25 February 2005 and 29 May 2025, and on the claim not having been actively pursued.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply. Employment Judge Childe was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claim was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The PDF text does not set out the particulars of the equal pay claim beyond the listing category. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The PDF text does not set out the particulars of the public interest disclosure claim beyond the listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out. The PDF text does not set out the particulars of the sex discrimination claim beyond the listing category. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.