Case 2600536/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Wright v Rolls-Royce plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2600536/2023
- Decision date
- 13 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Wright
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 01 June 2023 giving her an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The warning referred to failures to respond to the respondent's representative, comply with the case management order to serve a schedule of loss, and attend the case management preliminary hearing on 30 May 2023.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal found that the grounds in the warning were made out and struck out the claim. The hearing listed for 11, 12 and 13 November 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the claim is struck out and does not address the substantive merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim is struck out and does not address the substantive merits of the disability discrimination complaint. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.