Case 3205975/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss N Houston v DPD Group UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3205975/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss N Houston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 4 April 2022 or the preliminary hearing on 16 May 2022. The tribunal recorded that she had failed to comply with Employment Tribunal orders dated 14 March 2022 and 5 April 2022.
Employment Judge Burgher noted that the Claimant had made no representations, had not attended the hearing, and had not corresponded with the Tribunal or the Respondent since 16 December 2021. The Claimant's complaints were struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because of non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because she was not actively pursuing her claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the Claimant's claim/complaints without setting out the individual causes of action; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out the Claimant's claim/complaints without setting out the individual causes of action; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment strikes out the Claimant's claim/complaints without setting out the individual causes of action; this classification follows the supplied gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 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.