Case 6017389/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Karina Merritt v National Parking Control Group Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6017389/2025
- Decision date
- 2 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Pirani
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Karina Merritt
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal stated that it had written to the Claimant on 2 January 2026 explaining that strike out was being considered because the claim had not been actively pursued and/or because the Claimant continued to fail to comply with case management orders. The Claimant was given until 4 pm on 7 January 2026 to object or request a hearing.
The Tribunal recorded that no reply had been received from the Claimant. Employment Judge Woodhead concluded that it was in the interests of justice to strike out the claim because it had not been actively pursued, and asked the Tribunal administration to vacate the hearing listed for 14 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not determine the unfair dismissal claim on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not determine the disability discrimination claim on its merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
- interests of justice
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.