Case 3303347/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms Yulianova Ivanova v Baresta UK Ltd, Nucrema Crepes and Coffee and Sofiya Tasheva — 2021
- Case reference
- 3303347/2020
- Decision date
- 25 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bartlett Appearances
- Venue
- Watford via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms Yulianova Ivanova
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 12 March 2021 before Employment Judge Bartlett, the tribunal considered whether to make strike out or deposit orders. The claimant did not attend, and the tribunal recorded that there had been no communication from her since 8 October 2020, when her former representatives said they were no longer acting and provided her email address for future correspondence.
The respondents had emailed the claimant on 24 February, 3 March and 5 March 2021, including a copy of their strike-out application, and had also contacted ACAS in an attempt to reach her. The tribunal noted that it had received no response from the claimant, and there was no record of any communication from her to the tribunal about the hearing.
The tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The reasons recorded were that the claimant had been on notice of the hearing and the possible strike out from 18 October 2020, had not responded to either the tribunal or the respondents, had not attended the hearing, and had been out of contact for more than five months.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause or causes of action. It records only that the claim was struck out in its entirety under rule 37 for not being actively pursued. | 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.