Case 3322421/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs D Mcintyre v Lynbrook Ltd t/a Moto-Tec — 2023
- Case reference
- 3322421/2021
- Decision date
- 6 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs D Mcintyre
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mrs D Mcintyre's claim against Lynbrook Ltd t/a Moto-Tec. By letter dated 26 June 2023, it 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 dated 17 August 2022 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim, and recorded that the hearing fixed for 4 to 6 September 2023 would not take place. No merits findings or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; the discrimination claim type is taken from the case context/listing because the short judgment does not separate the underlying allegations. The claim was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's Order dated 17 August 2022 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; the redundancy claim type is taken from the case context/listing because the short judgment does not separate the underlying allegations. The claim was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's Order dated 17 August 2022 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; the discrimination claim type is taken from the case context/listing because the short judgment does not separate the underlying allegations. The claim was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's Order dated 17 August 2022 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; the unfair dismissal claim type is taken from the case context/listing because the short judgment does not separate the underlying allegations. The claim was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's Order dated 17 August 2022 and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations |
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.