Case 6013654/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Ramage v Perduco Law Limited and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013654/2024
- Decision date
- 3 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joffe Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms M Ramage
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe preliminary hearing concerned the claimant's application to strike out the first respondent's response for failure to comply with orders and/or unreasonable conduct of the proceedings, and whether to accept the second respondent's response. The tribunal noted that the underlying case involved money claims brought by a former family law solicitor, and that a TUPE issue concerning the second respondent had been listed but was not decided at this hearing.
The tribunal found that the first respondent had failed to comply with disclosure orders, including orders relating to payslips, tax documents, NEST payment evidence and documents about the second respondent's status. It found that the explanations given for non-disclosure were not adequate, that statements about the second respondent's ABS status and role in the proceedings were incorrect, and that documents were disclosed very late.
The tribunal concluded that the conduct of the proceedings met the threshold for unreasonable conduct, that a fair trial could not take place in the existing hearing window, and that a fair trial was not possible at all because there could not be a fair disclosure process. It struck out the first respondent's response in its entirety.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment records that the claimant brought money claims, but this preliminary judgment struck out the first respondent's response and did not decide the breach of contract claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to pay documents, payslips and sums said to be outstanding, but did not finally determine an unlawful deduction from wages claim or make an award. | Other | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The case listing identifies Working Time Regulations issues, but the preliminary judgment did not decide the working time claim on its merits. | Other | — | — |
| Transfer of undertakings (TUPE) | The judgment records that the claimant alleged a transfer of undertaking and that a preliminary hearing had been ordered to decide the TUPE question, but that hearing was converted to hear the strike out application. | Other | — | — |
| Other | The GOV.UK listing identifies a written pay statement issue, but the locked taxonomy has no separate written pay statement category and the preliminary judgment did not decide that issue. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(b)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James 2006 IRLR 630
- De Keyser Ltd v Wilson [2001] IRLR 324
- Bolch v Chipman 2004 IRLR 140
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd and ors [2022] ICR 327
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
- 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.