Case 3300774/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S O’Sullivan v Zico (and/or The Shack Ltd) — 2023
- Case reference
- 3300774/2022
- Decision date
- 9 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S O’Sullivan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Quill struck out the claim under rule 37. The tribunal recorded that, by letter dated 1 December 2022, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because she had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 22 May 2022 and had not actively pursued the case.
The judgment also recorded that there was lack of clarity about the intended respondent. No response had been presented by any respondent, and the claimant had failed to respond to requests for information about the intended respondent and the amounts sought if the claim succeeded. She did not make written representations in response to the 1 December 2022 letter and did not request a hearing, so the claim was struck out. The judgment does not record any merits findings or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment did not determine the merits of this claim. The case was struck out under rule 37 because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 22 May 2022, had not actively pursued the case, did not respond to the 1 December 2022 letter, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal also noted lack of clarity about the intended respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment did not determine the merits of this claim. The case was struck out under rule 37 because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 22 May 2022, had not actively pursued the case, did not respond to the 1 December 2022 letter, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal also noted lack of clarity about the intended respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.