Case 2601862/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss. A Gircyte v CDS Labour (Agriculture) Ltd (In Administration) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2601862/2021
- Decision date
- 9 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss. A Gircyte
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing in Nottingham on 8 November 2021, before Employment Judge Heap sitting alone, the claimant, Miss A Gircyte, appeared in person and the respondent was represented by counsel. An interpreter was present. The tribunal recorded a judgment that the whole of the claim was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because it had no reasonable prospect of success.
The written record does not set out any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claims. It states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The written judgment does not set out the underlying factual basis of the age discrimination claim. The tribunal recorded that the whole of the claim was struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Equal pay | The written judgment does not set out the underlying factual basis of the equal pay claim. The tribunal recorded that the whole of the claim was struck out under Rule 37 because it had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals (Constitution & 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.