Case 3327240/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Pryor v Gymophobics (Beverley) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327240/2019
- Decision date
- 12 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Pryor
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 15 February 2020, the tribunal told the claimant that Gymophobics (Bury St Edmunds) Ltd had been dissolved and was no longer a legal entity, so the claim could not proceed unless the company was restored to the Register of Companies. The proceedings were stayed, and the claimant was told the position would be reviewed after six months.
The tribunal later wrote on 6 October 2020 seeking an update, and on 24 November 2020 gave the claimant a further opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. In a letter dated 6 December 2020, the claimant said she had not applied to restore the respondent because it was too costly.
The tribunal held that, as the respondent had been dissolved and no application had been made to restore it to the Register, it was no longer a legal entity and the claim could not be pursued against it. On that basis, all claims brought by the claimant were struck out under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the individual heads of claim. It records that, because the respondent company had been dissolved and had not been restored to the Register of Companies, all claims brought by the claimant were struck out. | 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.