Case 6002569/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Coombes v Poundstretcher — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002569/2023
- Decision date
- 22 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Coombes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal rejected Miss Coombes's unfair dismissal claim under Rule 13(1)(b) because she had not complied with the case management order of 9 January 2024 requiring further information to clarify her constructive dismissal complaint. The tribunal said the claim was not in a form that could sensibly be responded to.
It recorded that the claimant's disability discrimination claim had been accepted on 11 March 2024, but that this judgment did not decide that claim. The tribunal said that after more than a year without further detail of the alleged treatment, it was not in accordance with the overriding objective to direct further judicial resources to obtaining that information, and that doing so would not be fair to the respondent or to other tribunal users.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Rejected under Rule 13(1)(b) after the claimant failed to comply with the 9 January 2024 case management order requiring further information to clarify her constructive dismissal complaint. The judgment says the claim was not in a form that could sensibly be responded to. It also notes that a disability discrimination claim had been accepted on 11 March 2024, but that claim was not decided in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 13(1)(b)
- overriding objective
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.