Case 3200512/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Naseem Khalid v Verrolyne Services Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3200512/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Travers Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Naseem Khalid
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Travers struck out Ms Khalid's claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment records two grounds: non-compliance with a tribunal order and the claim not being actively pursued.
The claimant had been directed on 22 April 2022 to file a properly itemised statement of remedy by 20 May 2022 and to help produce an agreed schedule of issues by the same date. She did not file the remedy statement, did not respond to the respondent's draft list of issues, and did not contact the tribunal after a written strike-out warning was issued on 9 July 2022.
The respondent applied to strike out the claim on 1 July 2022. The claimant did not attend the hearing on 6 September 2022 and gave no explanation for her absence. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim and vacated the preliminary hearing listed for 19 September 2022 and the final hearing listed for 15-16 December 2022. No substantive liability or remedy decision was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because there had been non-compliance with tribunal orders and the claim had not been actively pursued. No merits findings were made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.