Case 2502073/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Rouesnel v Utilitywise plc (in Administration) and 1 other — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502073/2019
- Decision date
- 15 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss L Rouesnel
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under a strike-out judgment. The complaints identified in the judgment were Disability Discrimination, Redundancy Payment and Breach of Contract.
The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 8 February 2020 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why those complaints should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make written representations, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The complaint of Disability Discrimination was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to make written representations, sufficient representations, or request a hearing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The Redundancy Payment complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to make written representations, sufficient representations, or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The Breach of Contract complaint was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to make written representations, sufficient representations, or request a hearing. | 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.