Case 6005487/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Watson v Time & Talents Association, and 1 other — 2026
- Case reference
- 6005487/2024
- Decision date
- 3 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Khalil
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss C Watson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim after writing to the claimant on 14 February 2026 to warn that strike out was being considered. The warning was based on apparent non-compliance with the Tribunal's order from the case management hearing on 15 July 2025 and the claim not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not reply to explain why the claim should not be struck out or request a hearing. Regional Employment Judge Khalil was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The short strike-out judgment does not set out the underlying public interest disclosure allegations; claim type is taken from the listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The short strike-out judgment does not set out the underlying race discrimination allegations; claim type is taken from the listing context. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The short strike-out judgment does not set out the underlying unfair dismissal allegations; claim type is taken from the listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.