Case 3327639/2019 · Employment Tribunal
In person For the v Ms Marnie Burke, HR Officer — 2021
- Case reference
- 3327639/2019
- Decision date
- 11 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
In person For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a remote hearing on the papers at Cambridge before Employment Judge K J Palmer on 5 January 2021. The respondent was represented by Ms Marnie Burke, HR Officer, and the claimant appeared in person.
The written judgment states that the claimant's claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1. No substantive liability findings were made in the record provided.
No remedy was awarded. The record also states that written reasons would not be provided unless requested by a party within 14 days of the decision being sent.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The written judgment does not separate the pleaded issues, but the case listing identified breach of contract among the claims and the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not separate the pleaded issues, but the case listing identified unlawful deduction from wages among the claims and the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, Schedule 1
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.