Case 3304524/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms R Haertel v Oyster Yachts Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3304524/2020
- Decision date
- 3 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms R Haertel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 18 March 2021, the tribunal gave Ms R Haertel an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success, that she had not complied with the tribunal's order of 14 November 2020, and that it had not been actively pursued.
Ms Haertel did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Warren therefore struck out the claim on 11 August 2021, and the judgment was sent to the parties on 3 September 2021. The claim was disposed of without any merits findings or remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying pleaded claims separately, but the case listing context identifies unfair dismissal as one of them. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying pleaded claims separately, but the case listing context identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of them. The tribunal struck out the claim without determining the merits. | 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.