Case 2603100/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Gould & 13 Others (see attached Multiple Schedule) v Primelife Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603100/2019
- Decision date
- 3 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jeram Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Gould & 13 Others (see attached Multiple Schedule)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 7 April 2020, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claims should not be struck out because they had not been actively pursued. The claimants did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Jeram Date struck out the claims set out in the attached schedule under rule 37. The judgment records that the hearing fixed for 7 to 11 December 2020 would not take place. No merits findings or remedy were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying head of claim; this category is inferred from the case listing context. The tribunal struck out the claims because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying head of claim; this category is inferred from the case listing context. The tribunal struck out the claims because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.