Case 6006135/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Brown v Hats Group Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006135/2024
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mrs R Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 November 2025 the Tribunal wrote to Mrs R Brown warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it appeared not to have been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing on that issue.
The claimant did not reply. Employment Judge M Butler was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was consistent with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The stated reason was the claimant's lack of response and apparent failure actively to pursue the claim.
The judgment therefore orders that the claim be struck out. The hearing listed for 25 November 2025 did not take place. No merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the underlying substantive claims; it orders that 'the claim' be struck out under Rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued and the claimant did not reply to the Tribunal's warning letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 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.