Case 4100276/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Ms K Pickering v Vanilla Ink Jewellery School CIC — 2024
- Case reference
- 4100276/2021
- Decision date
- 30 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Kearns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms K Pickering
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 25 July 2024 Employment Judge M Kearns struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that it was not being actively pursued within rule 37(1)(d). The judgment records that the case concerned Ms K Pickering and Vanilla Ink Jewellery School CIC, and the public listing identified sex discrimination and unfair dismissal as the categories of claim.
The reasons note that the parties had been given time in October 2023 to finalise a settlement agreement, and the Tribunal then asked for an update by 1 November 2023. No update was provided. Further letters sent on 20 December 2023 and 22 January 2024 seeking progress updates also received no reply.
The Tribunal then gave the claimant an opportunity on 4 March 2024 to provide written reasons by 18 March 2024, or to request a hearing to explain why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did neither, and made no application to amend.
The judgment states that the claimant had failed to give an acceptable reason why judgment should not be made, and the Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The text also says the claim had no reasonable prospect of success, but the operative basis stated at the start of the judgment is that it was not being actively pursued. No monetary remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out without a merits hearing.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | The judgment does not separate this claim from the case as a whole. The strike-out was made under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim, with no merits determination. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate this claim from the case as a whole. The strike-out was made under rule 37(1)(d) for failure to actively pursue the claim, with no merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.