Case 3304942/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss T Ramzan v Hallett Retail Services Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304942/2022
- Decision date
- 8 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George Foxwell
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss T Ramzan
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 15 March 2023, the tribunal gave Miss Ramzan an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that she had not complied with the tribunal orders dated 5 January 2023 and 20 February 2023, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
Miss Ramzan did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Regional Employment Judge George Foxwell therefore struck out the claim on 8 May 2024. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits and no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment itself says only that 'the claim' was struck out for noncompliance and lack of active pursuit; this claim type is taken from the case listing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment itself says only that 'the claim' was struck out for noncompliance and lack of active pursuit; this claim type is taken from the case listing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment itself says only that 'the claim' was struck out for noncompliance and lack of active pursuit; this claim type is taken from the case listing. | 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.