Case 3314253/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No appearance For the v Respondent — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314253/2021
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Andrew Clarke
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No appearance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Cambridge on 13 December 2024, Employment Judge Andrew Clarke KC heard the case of Ms R Bruce v Impakt Housing and Support. The claimant did not appear; the respondent was represented by Ms R Kight, counsel. The written judgment records that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment.
The tribunal struck out each and every part of the claim under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The stated bases for strike-out were that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was unreasonable, the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders, and the claimant had not actively pursued the claim.
No findings were made on the merits of the underlying discrimination allegations and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only states that each and every part of the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | Claim type inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only states that each and every part of the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.