Case 3316535/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Kerry Regis First v Claire Frith Second Respondent: Audrey Steward — 2022
- Case reference
- 3316535/2021
- Decision date
- 26 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Boyes
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Kerry Regis First
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because it had not been actively pursued. The case was heard at Cambridge on 1 November 2022 before Employment Judge Boyes sitting alone, with no attendance from either side.
The tribunal recorded that it had written to the claimant on 30 July 2022 requesting further particulars within 7 days, then on 22 August 2022 giving notice of the hearing and asking her to clarify what she was claiming and the sums involved by 12 September 2022. Further correspondence was sent on 5 October 2022, and on 24 October 2022 the claimant was told that strike-out was being considered and invited to object or request a hearing by 1 November 2022.
The claimant did not provide any further details, did not attend the hearing, and gave no explanation for her non-attendance or for failing to reply to the tribunal’s correspondence. The tribunal said it could not determine the claim without key particulars, including the amount of wages said to be owed, and struck the claim out after taking account of the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim struck out under rule 37(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of The Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- overriding objective
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.