Case 6006580/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L F Weineck v Gogo Gadget Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006580/2024
- Decision date
- 13 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Miss L F Weineck
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 13 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so.
The claimant did not reply. Employment Judge Anstis was satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately analyse this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38
- 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.