Case 3313240/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss P Munns v Smo Media Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3313240/2020
- Decision date
- 2 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss P Munns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety. It recorded that the respondent company had been dissolved and that the claimant had not applied to have it restored to the Register of Companies. The judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action, but it treats the matter as a single claim that could not proceed in the respondent's absence without restoration.
On 2 July 2022 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason. On that basis, the tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out.
No remedy was awarded and the judgment contains no findings on liability for the substantive claims. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Anstis on 25 July 2022 and sent to the parties on 2 August 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying heads of claim; it states that 'the claim' was struck out because the respondent company had been dissolved, the claimant had not applied to restore it to the Register of Companies, and the claimant failed to provide an acceptable reason after being given an opportunity on 2 July 2022 to explain why the case should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.