Case 3323484/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Dr C MacKenzie v The Principal, Fellows and Scholars of Homerton College in the University of Cambridge — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323484/2021
- Decision date
- 6 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge George
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Dr C MacKenzie
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the respondent's application to strike out the claims under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, relying on alleged unreasonable conduct, non-compliance with orders, and failure actively to pursue the claims.
The tribunal found that the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably by producing evidence for the preliminary hearing three months late and by not alerting the respondent earlier to compliance difficulties. It also noted a previous late provision of further information, but was not satisfied that the claimant's conduct amounted to persistent or deliberate failure or that she had failed actively to pursue the claims.
Taking account of the overriding objective and authorities on strike out, the tribunal concluded that striking out the claim would be disproportionate at this stage. The respondent's strike-out application was refused.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Preliminary hearing judgment only: the respondent's application to strike out the claim was refused. The substantive claims were not adjudicated in this judgment. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
- Weir Valves & Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd [2022] ICR 327
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.