Case 3202068/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L. Morris v London Borough of Hackney — 2022
- Case reference
- 3202068/2019
- Decision date
- 26 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L. Morris
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the Claimant's seventh claim against the Respondent, Case No. 3202068/2019, under Rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that it had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal had ordered the Claimant to confirm by 15 April 2022 whether she wished to pursue or withdraw the seventh case. Her replies on 14 and 19 April 2022 referred to an intended appeal in relation to her first six cases but did not answer that question. A further order on 12 May 2022 required a clear reply by 19 May 2022 and warned that non-compliance could lead to strike out.
The Claimant did not reply to the further order. Employment Judge Massarella concluded, having reminded himself of the guidance in Rolls Royce plc v Riddle, that the Claimant had acted deliberately and contumeliously and that it was not proportionate for further Tribunal resources to be used on the matter.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment identifies this only as the Claimant's seventh claim, Case No. 3202068/2019, and does not specify the underlying pleaded claim types in the supplied text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rolls Royce plc v Riddle [2008] IRLR 873 EAT
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.