Case 3304631/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss M Janusauskaite v Just Ask Estate Services Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304631/2020
- Decision date
- 10 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss M Janusauskaite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant issued the ET1 on 13 May 2020 and ticked unfair dismissal, race discrimination and redundancy payment. In the form she said she had suffered discrimination on the basis of 'language'. The respondent said the claims were unclear, and Employment Judge R Lewis ordered the claimant on 10 August 2020 to provide further information about what had happened, when, who was responsible and who was present.
The tribunal recorded that although the claimant sent various emails after that order, none answered it. The respondent said it had not received any further particulars and asked that the claim be struck out. Regional Employment Judge Foxwell later said it would be disproportionate to strike out on the parties' written representations alone, so the application was listed for the hearing on 7 April 2021.
The tribunal found that the claimant never provided an adequate or substantive response to the order for further particulars. It also found that she did not have two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. The claimant did not reply to the tribunal's enquiry about whether she needed an interpreter and did not attend the hearing.
In those circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the claimant was not actively pursuing her claim and that all claims should be struck out. No substantive findings were made on liability and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal found the claimant did not have two years' continuous service to bring an ordinary unfair dismissal claim under the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The ET1 ticked race discrimination and said the claimant had suffered discrimination on the basis of 'language'; the tribunal struck out the claim without determining its merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant ticked the redundancy payment box in the ET1, but the tribunal struck out all claims and did not determine any redundancy entitlement. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Rights Act 1996
- strike out
- not actively pursuing
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.