Case 2602607/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Sood v SM Global Consultancy Ltd TA Staffing Match — 2022
- Case reference
- 2602607/2021
- Decision date
- 26 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Sood
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety. It recorded that by letter dated 9 August 2022 the claimant was ordered to confirm whether her named representative was still representing her and, if not, to provide details of an alternative representative or her own contact details. The claimant was given seven days to respond but did not do so.
A further letter dated 9 September 2022 warned that Employment Judge Butler was considering striking out the claim because it was not being actively pursued, and invited a reasonable explanation by 22 September 2022 as to why it should not be struck out. The claimant did not reply to that letter either.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to make written representations or request a hearing to explain why the claims should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The result was that the claims in their entirety were struck out, and the hearing fixed for 4, 5 and 6 January 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not list the underlying allegations; the sex discrimination claim is inferred from the case listing category provided in the case context. The tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the underlying allegations; this claim type is inferred from the case listing category provided in the case context. The tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not specify the exact working time allegation; this claim type is inferred from the case listing category provided in the case context. The tribunal struck out the claims in their entirety because they were not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.