Case 6015116/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Georgina Huskins v Siva Plastics Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015116/2025
- Decision date
- 12 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Georgina Huskins
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to Georgina Huskins on 31 March 2026 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because she had not complied with Tribunal orders dated 5 December 2025, 7 March 2026 and 31 March 2026. The letter allowed her to explain why the claim should not be struck out or request a hearing, but she did not reply.
Employment Judge Cadney was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that striking out the claim accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was struck out, and the hearing listed for 10 to 13 August 2026 was cancelled. The judgment did not determine any underlying cause of action on its merits or record a monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action or separately determine the categories shown in the supplied gov.uk listing; it strikes out the claim as a whole. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.