Case 2502211/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Armstrong v Selina Shearer & Others — 2020
- Case reference
- 2502211/2019
- Decision date
- 7 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 February 2020, the Tribunal gave Mrs K Armstrong an opportunity to make written representations or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37. The judgment does not record any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not give separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not give separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not give separate findings for this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; it does not give separate findings for this head of claim. | 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.