Case 3323494/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs K Symes v Oldbrook Hire Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3323494/2021
- Decision date
- 14 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Reindorf Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs K Symes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 17 March 2023, the Tribunal gave Mrs K Symes an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reason given was that she had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 14 March 2023 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Reindorf therefore struck out the claim in a judgment dated 22 May 2023. The judgment records no findings on the merits of the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 14 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The Tribunal recorded no merits findings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 14 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The Tribunal recorded no merits findings. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 14 March 2023 and had not actively pursued the case. The Tribunal recorded no merits findings. | 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.