Case 3200641/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Dawn Diett v Ghost IT Services Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 3200641/2019
- Decision date
- 2 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Appearances
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Dawn Diett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 2 October 2019 at East London Hearing Centre, before Employment Judge Burgher, neither party attended. The judgment records that Ms Dawn Diett had also failed to attend the hearing on 8 July 2019.
The tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under rule 37 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal Rules on the basis that they had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the parties had been warned by order of 8 July 2019 that a failure to attend might result in strike out, and that there had been no subsequent communication from the claimant.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers collectively to the claimant's claims and does not distinguish between individual causes of action; all were struck out under rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers collectively to the claimant's claims and does not distinguish between individual causes of action; all were struck out under rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers collectively to the claimant's claims and does not distinguish between individual causes of action; all were struck out under rule 37 because they had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of the 2013 Employment Tribunal Rules
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.