Case 3305530/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Patel v Demipower Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 3305530/2024
- Decision date
- 2 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had written to the claimant on 2 March 2026 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The stated grounds were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 13 May 2025, the claim had not been actively pursued, and/or it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing.
The claimant did not reply to the letter or request a hearing. Employment Judge Alliott was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike-out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3, so the claim was struck out and the hearing listed for 17 to 20 March 2026 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment is a short strike-out decision and does not address the merits. Claim type is taken from the listing category/Public Interest Disclosure context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment is a short strike-out decision and does not address the merits. Claim type is taken from the listing category context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a short strike-out decision and does not address the merits. Claim type is taken from the listing category context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.