Case 3314364/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S Repkova v Wex & Co Estate Agents — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314364/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Loy
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S Repkova
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Loy sitting alone at Watford on 25 November 2019. The respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claim, saying the claimant had failed to comply with an order to send the documents on which she intended to rely not less than 7 days before the hearing, and that it had been disadvantaged because the documents were only provided on 22 November 2019 for a 25 November 2019 hearing.
The tribunal rejected that application. It held that the tribunal's letter of 11 March 2019 did not contain any order requiring the parties to provide in advance the documents on which they intended to rely. The judge found that the paragraph relied on by the respondent referred to written representations, not documents, and explained that written representations are not the same thing as documents.
The tribunal said that documents were dealt with in the following paragraph of the 11 March 2019 letter, which required each party to bring to the hearing the documents on which they intended to rely, with sufficient copies. On that basis, the judge found that the claimant was not in breach of any tribunal order. The respondent's strike-out application therefore had no merit and was dismissed. The judgment did not determine the substantive claim itself and recorded no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The respondent's application to strike out the claimant's claim was dismissed. The underlying substantive claim was not determined in this judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.