Case 6004408/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Lanya Ashwell v Vin-x Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6004408/2024
- Decision date
- 15 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Lanya Ashwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought proceedings after resigning on 3 June 2024. The judgment records that the claim was primarily for constructive dismissal and sex discrimination, with additional boxes ticked for whistleblowing, age discrimination, statutory redundancy payment, notice pay, holiday pay, unlawful deduction from wages and other payments.
The Tribunal struck out the claim in its entirety under rule 38(1)(b). It found that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, referring to non-attendance at hearings, failure to provide an address, the inability of the parties to communicate directly, and the effect of alleged intimidation on the fairness of any hearing.
The Tribunal also stated that, if the strike-out conclusion was wrong, the claims would alternatively be dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
9 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wrongful dismissal | The judgment refers to notice pay being claimed and states the claim was struck out in its entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Constructive dismissal | The judgment says the claim was primarily constructive dismissal and was struck out in its entirety under rule 38(1)(b), alternatively dismissed under rule 47 for non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment identifies sex discrimination as a primary claim and states the claim was struck out in its entirety. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment says the whistleblowing box on the claim form was ticked and that the claim was struck out in its entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The judgment says the age discrimination box on the claim form was ticked and that the claim was struck out in its entirety. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment says the statutory redundancy payment box on the claim form was ticked and that the claim was struck out in its entirety. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 38(1)(b) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630 (CA)
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.