Case 3305300/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Patel v Revere Riverside Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3305300/2020
- Decision date
- 2 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerns case nos. 3305300/2020, 3305316/2020, 3305329/2020 and 3305333/2020 brought by Ms M Patel against Revere Riverside Ltd. The tribunal recorded that the respondent company had been dissolved and that the claimant had not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies. On that basis, the tribunal considered whether the claims should be struck out.
The tribunal had previously given the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claims should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. That opportunity was given by an order dated 3 May 2022 and sent on 27 May 2022. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason in response.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claims. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying complaints, and it does not record any monetary remedy or award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Judgment covers case nos. 3305300/2020, 3305316/2020, 3305329/2020 and 3305333/2020 collectively; all claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Judgment covers case nos. 3305300/2020, 3305316/2020, 3305329/2020 and 3305333/2020 collectively; all claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Judgment covers case nos. 3305300/2020, 3305316/2020, 3305329/2020 and 3305333/2020 collectively; all claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Judgment covers case nos. 3305300/2020, 3305316/2020, 3305329/2020 and 3305333/2020 collectively; all claims were struck out. | 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.