Case 3303681/2024 · Employment Tribunal

Laurna Warner v Elliot Woolfe and Rose Limited — 2026

Case reference: 3303681/2024
Decision date: 30 June 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Manley

Indexed: 18 September 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Laurna Warner

Respondent

Elliot Woolfe and Rose Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out Laurna Warner's claim against Elliot Woolfe and Rose Limited. It had written to the claimant on 11 February 2026 warning that it was considering strike-out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The grounds were failure to comply with the tribunal's order dated 2 October 2025 and failure to actively pursue the claim.

The warning letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The tribunal recorded that she had not replied. On 30 June 2026, Employment Judge Manley found that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The hearing scheduled for 7 to 11 June 2027 would therefore not take place. The judgment records no monetary award.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment refers only to 'the claim' and does not identify its legal basis. It records that the claimant did not reply to the warning letter, but the role of the adjoining date, 25 February 2026, is unclear.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.