Case 3304318/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms S Connolly v Dionne Queensborough Bronte Perry Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304318/2022
- Decision date
- 6 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms S Connolly
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 14 August 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing by 29 August 2022, about why the claims against Dionne Queensborough and Bronte Perry should not be struck out. The tribunal said the issue was that no claim within its jurisdiction had been identified in the claim form and that the claims had no reasonable prospect of success.
The claimant did not make written representations and did not ask for a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claims against Dionne Queensborough and Bronte Perry under rule 37.
The judgment records that this did not affect the only remaining claim, which was unfair dismissal. It also amended the name of the remaining respondent from "Sainsburys Goldersgreen" to Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd, and kept the hearing and case management orders in force. No merits finding or monetary award is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim against Dionne Queensborough was struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal gave the claimant until 29 August 2022 to make representations or request a hearing; no representation or hearing request was received. The tribunal said no claim within its jurisdiction had been identified in the claim form and that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The claim against Bronte Perry was struck out on the same basis under rule 37 after the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter of 14 August 2022 or request a hearing. The tribunal found no claim within its jurisdiction had been identified in the claim form and no reasonable prospect of success. | 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.