Case 3322525/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs CK Sandhu v Baxter Storey Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322525/2021
- Decision date
- 8 April 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs CK Sandhu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment is a strike-out decision. The Tribunal records that notice of hearing and standard case management orders were sent on 8 April 2022. The Respondent then applied for an unless order on 23 May 2022 on the basis that the Claimant had not complied with those orders.
On 26 June 2022 the Tribunal sent the Claimant a letter, on instruction from EJ Cowen, requiring her to explain in writing by 11 July 2022 why she had not complied and warning that failure to respond might lead to strike out. No reply was received.
The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not actively pursuing her claims and had failed to comply with Tribunal orders. It held that it was in the interests of justice to strike out the claims. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the underlying claims and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | Underlying claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories; the judgment itself refers only to the Claimant's 'claims' collectively and strikes them out for non-pursuit and non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying claim type inferred from the GOV.UK listing categories; the judgment itself refers only to the Claimant's 'claims' collectively and strikes them out for non-pursuit and non-compliance with Tribunal orders. | 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.