Case 3300636/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms A Lapuniene & others v Mainstream Direct Ltd T/A Principal Mailing Solutions (in Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 3300636/2024
- Decision date
- 29 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dick Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms A Lapuniene & others
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 9 May 2025, the Tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the claims should not be struck out. The stated bases were that the claimants had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 28 October 2024 and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the remaining claims, meaning those claims which had not already been dismissed upon withdrawal.
The judgment is procedural only and records no substantive determination of the underlying employment claims. It was approved by Employment Judge Dick Date on 7 July 2025 and sent to the parties on 29 July 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the remaining claims after the claimants failed to make representations, or sufficient representations, in response to the Tribunal's 9 May 2025 letter. The reasons state that the claims had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 28 October 2024 and had not been actively pursued. The judgment also notes that some claims had already been dismissed upon withdrawal. | 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.