Case 3309307/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss R Allen v Hermes Parcelnet Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3309307/2022
- Decision date
- 27 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss R Allen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaints of unfair dismissal, breach of contract, unpaid wages and disability discrimination.
The reasons given were that, after a letter dated 26 June 2023, the claimant had an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the complaints should not be struck out because of non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 27 February 2023 and because the claims had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make written representations, sufficient representations, or request a hearing.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's 27 February 2023 order and the complaint had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's 27 February 2023 order and the complaint had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to this as a complaint of unpaid wages. It was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's 27 February 2023 order and the complaint had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's 27 February 2023 order and the complaint had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.