Case 3202065/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Butler v Motability — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202065/2023
- Decision date
- 24 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Butler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 4 June 2024, the tribunal gave Miss J Butler an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons recorded that she had not complied with the order to provide a Schedule of Loss by 21 March 2023, had not answered the questions relating to sexual orientation discrimination in the draft List of Issues, had not provided an agenda for the 8 May 2024 hearing, and had not responded to the tribunal's request of 22 April 2024 confirming readiness for that hearing by 29 April 2024.
The judgment records that the claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not occur, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The hearing fixed for 15 July 2024 was not to take place. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The reasons refer to the claimant's partial response being only in relation to the disability issues. The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately determine this head on the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The tribunal noted that the claimant did not provide answers to the respondent's questions on sexual orientation discrimination in the draft list of issues. The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately determine this head on the merits. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
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.