Case 6018840/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Charlotte Hale v J2 Partners Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6018840/2024
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Coghlin KC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Charlotte Hale
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's claim under rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not actively been pursued. The claimant had been given notice of the proposed strike-out and seven days to object, but did not object or otherwise communicate with the tribunal.
The judge recorded that the claimant had not complied with orders, had failed without explanation to attend a hearing intended to progress the matter, had failed to respond to tribunal correspondence, and had raised no objection to strike-out. Although the judge noted the public interest in discrimination claims being considered on their merits, the judge considered strike-out an appropriate and proportionate response.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claim for failure actively to pursue it; it does not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to this as a discrimination claim but does not determine the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claim for failure actively to pursue it; it does not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claimant's claim for failure actively to pursue it; it does not adjudicate the merits of this listed claim category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024
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.