Case 3200014/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Alicia Salter v Fast Line Training Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200014/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Alicia Salter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Salter presented her claim on 5 January 2022. The tribunal recorded that it raised complaints of unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity, and a claim for other payments. The hearing on 21 July 2022 was conducted remotely and the claimant did not attend or act through representation; the respondent was represented by its managing director, Terry Rayner.
The reasons section sets out repeated tribunal correspondence to the claimant between January and July 2022. That correspondence included acknowledgment of the claim, notification that the claim appeared to have been presented late, notice of a preliminary hearing, later notice of a two-day hearing in October 2022, and requests for a schedule of loss, an agreed schedule of issues, and a response to the tribunal's strike-out warning.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not responded to any of that correspondence. Applying Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure, and noting that a claim may not be struck out unless the party has had a reasonable opportunity to make representations under Rule 37(2), the tribunal concluded that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The judgment states that the entire claim was struck out. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the unfair dismissal or pregnancy and maternity discrimination complaints, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal recorded this as one of the complaints in the claim and struck out the entire claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | The tribunal recorded a complaint of discrimination on the grounds of pregnancy or maternity and struck out the entire claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Pregnancy and maternity | — |
| Other | The claim also included 'a claim for other payments'. The judgment did not specify the legal basis for that complaint, and the tribunal struck out the entire claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- Rule 37(2) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
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.