Case 3314651/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v EE T/a Commture 365 — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314651/2021
- Decision date
- 11 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hawksworth Appearances
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss S Russell brought a disability discrimination claim against EE t/a Commture 365. The case was heard by Employment Judge Hawksworth on 28 July 2022 by CVP. The claimant did not attend and was not represented; the respondent was represented by a litigation executive.
The tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with orders made on 25 February 2022 requiring her to provide a schedule of loss, a disability impact statement and medical records, and to exchange documents. It also found that she had not actively pursued the claim. For those reasons, the claim was struck out under rules 37(1)(c), 37(1)(d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
In a postscript, the judge recorded that an email from the claimant sent after the hearing asked for the hearing to be rearranged due to hospital, but it referred to the case number of the claimant's second claim rather than this case. The judgment states that if the claimant wishes to pursue case 3314651/2021, she may ask for reconsideration within 14 days of receiving the judgment and should provide evidence of the hospital appointment and an explanation for why the rearrangement request was not made earlier.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was struck out under rules 37(1)(c), 37(1)(d) and 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders, had not actively pursued the claim, and did not attend the hearing. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 rules 37(1)(c), 37(1)(d) and 47
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.