Case 3322310/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Zuzu v Catalin Balau — 2021
- Case reference
- 3322310/2019
- Decision date
- 9 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill.
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms D Zuzu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment under rule 37 in the claim by Ms D Zuzu against Catalin Balau. By letter dated 12 June 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because she had not complied with the tribunal's order of 22 March 2021 and the claim had not been actively pursued, including no response to questions about the identity of the employer.
The claimant did not make any written representations and did not ask for a hearing. The tribunal recorded that she had not contacted the tribunal since 21 November 2020. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim.
The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim, and it does not record any monetary award. The only outcome recorded is strike out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Working time regulations | The judgment is a strike-out decision and does not set out the underlying substantive working-time allegations. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not comply with the order dated 22 March 2021, did not actively pursue the case, and did not respond to questions about the identity of the employer. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.