Miss L Smith v Time Systems UK Ltd — 2025

Case reference: 3306304/2024
Decision date: 12 February 2025
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Tynan

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Miss L Smith

Respondent

Time Systems UK Ltd

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By a letter dated 31 October 2024, the tribunal gave Miss L Smith an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why her claim should not be struck out. The tribunal identified three grounds for possible strike out: failure to comply with the tribunal's order dated 31/10/2024, failure to actively pursue the claim, and insufficient length of service.

Miss L Smith did not make representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any substantive determination of liability on the merits or any monetary remedy.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	The tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 31 October 2024 to make representations or request a hearing. The stated reasons were non-compliance with the tribunal's order dated 31/10/2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued, and that the claimant had insufficient length of service. The claimant did not make representations or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.	Struck out	—	—

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.