Case 3202076/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss E Wilkinson v Arcus FM Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3202076/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Shore Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss E Wilkinson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 8 November 2024 before Employment Judge S Shore, held by remote video at East London Tribunal Hearing Centre, the claimant did not appear and the respondent appeared through Mr P Chadwick. The tribunal dealt with case numbers 3202076/2023 and 3202182/2023 together.
The tribunal decided that all of the claimant’s claims in both cases were struck out in their entirety under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because they had not been actively pursued. The judgment records no merits determination and no monetary award.
The written record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out in its entirety under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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.