Case 3306333/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss B Russell v Barefoot Oxford Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3306333/2024
- Decision date
- 7 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss B Russell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss Russell’s complaints were struck out, bringing her claim against Barefoot Oxford Limited to an end. The judgment did not determine the substantive merits of the complaints or make any monetary award.
The tribunal found that Miss Russell had not complied with any of the orders made at the preliminary hearing on 20 August 2025. She had not provided a list of dates of late wage payments, a schedule of loss, mitigation evidence, or her witness statement. After the tribunal wrote to her on 9 April 2026 inviting an explanation or a request for a hearing, she did not reply.
Employment Judge Hawksworth was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The reasons were the wholesale failure to comply with tribunal orders, the absence of active pursuit of the claim, and the resulting inability to hold a fair hearing on 4, 5 and 6 August 2026. Those hearing dates were cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out all complaints collectively without identifying individual claim types; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment strikes out all complaints collectively without identifying individual claim types; this classification follows the gov.uk listing category. | Struck out | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 grounds for striking out
- 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.