Case 6002751/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms L Lazar v Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 6002751/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms L Lazar
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 22 December 2023. A preliminary hearing listed for 3 May 2024 was postponed at the claimant's request, but the application was refused because it was made less than seven days before the hearing, there were no exceptional circumstances, and the claimant had known the date for many weeks. The Tribunal then made orders requiring the claimant to clarify her claim by 31 May 2024 and to provide a schedule of loss by 14 June 2024.
The claimant did not comply with those orders. A further preliminary hearing was listed for 4 July 2024 after she had not attended the first one, and on 13 June 2024 the respondent applied for an unless order. Employment Judge Ayre did not make an unless order, but warned the claimant that the claim might be struck out for non-compliance and because it was not being actively pursued, and gave her until 3 July 2024 to explain why it should not be struck out or to request a hearing.
The claimant did not respond to that warning and did not attend the hearing. The Tribunal noted that the only correspondence from her concerned the hearing link and two emails saying she could not attend because of another tribunal hearing and a work-related probationary process; she also said she understood the case would be closed and that she had not been seeking financial gain. The Tribunal found the case was not being actively pursued, that the claimant was in breach of Tribunal orders, and that strike out was consistent with the overriding objective. It therefore struck out the claims under Rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims in the reasons text; this classification follows the supplied case listing context. The claims were struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims in the reasons text; this classification follows the supplied case listing context. The claims were struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately enumerate the underlying claims in the reasons text; this classification follows the supplied case listing context. The claims were struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37
- 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.