Case 3311532/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs N Saran v D.P.J. Clothing Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311532/2020
- Decision date
- 13 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R. Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs N Saran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 January 2023, the Tribunal gave Mrs N Saran an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any merits findings on the underlying employment claims and does not award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim; it states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim; it states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim; it states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out a separate merits determination for this claim; it states that 'the claim' was struck out because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.