Case 3220508/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L. Holt v Lindex UK Fashion Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3220508/2020
- Decision date
- 10 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Massarella Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L. Holt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying claim. Instead, it recorded that the claimant, Miss L. Holt, failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders, including an order dated 31 March 2021 to provide a schedule of loss. A further letter dated 20 May 2021 warned that if she did not comply by 27 May 2021, a judge would consider striking out the claim for not being actively pursued, and time was later extended to 7 June 2021 by letter dated 2 June 2021.
The claimant did not comply with the orders. The Tribunal noted that she had not complied with any of its orders, including the original orders to provide a witness statement and bundle of documents for the hearing. She also did not attend the hearing and did not respond to attempts by Tribunal administration to contact her on the telephone number she had provided.
Employment Judge Massarella was satisfied that the claim had not been actively pursued and ordered that it be struck out on 10 June 2021. No remedy was assessed or awarded because the claim was struck out before any merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant did not comply with Tribunal orders, including orders to provide a schedule of loss, witness statement, and bundle of documents, and did not attend the hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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.