Case 3319414/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs E Stulgiene v Kuehne + Nagel Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 3319414/2019
- Decision date
- 26 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs E Stulgiene
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs E Stulgiene brought complaints of breach of contract, unauthorized deductions from wages, unpaid annual leave, and a failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions against Kuehne + Nagel Limited. The judgment does not determine the merits of those complaints.
Employment Judge Heal struck out all of the complaints because the claimant had not complied with orders of the tribunal and had not actively pursued her claim. No substantive findings were made on liability, and no remedy or compensation was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | This complaint concerned a failure to provide a written statement of terms and conditions. It was struck out because the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. | 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.