Case 3205173/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Hind v Success for All Education Trust/Redden Court School — 2021
- Case reference
- 3205173/2021
- Decision date
- 4 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge F Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Hind
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a case management order dated 10 June 2022, the tribunal gave Mrs A Hind an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued, and required a response by 24 June 2022. She did not respond.
The reasons record a pattern of non-compliance after the claim was presented on 16 July 2021. The claimant did not complete the case management agenda sent on 4 August 2021, did not provide the full and correct name of her former employer when asked on 20 October 2021, did not provide a schedule of loss or agreed schedule of issues, did not respond to the Tribunal’s letter of 1 December 2021, and did not attend the preliminary hearing by telephone on 9 June 2022.
On that basis, Employment Judge F Allen found that the claim had not been actively pursued and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The hearing listed for 29 to 31 March 2023 was vacated. The judgment records no substantive findings on the underlying discrimination or unfair dismissal allegations and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. No merits determination was made. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. No merits determination was made. | 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.