A Elliott v Ramen Chill Westcliff — 2023

Case reference: 3203940/2022
Decision date: 23 February 2023
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Burgher Date

Indexed: 22 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

A Elliott

Respondent

Ramen Chill Westcliff

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By a letter dated 3 February 2023, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing explaining why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The extracted judgment does not state the underlying cause of action; it only records that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.