Case 8000137/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs C Vickers v Altea Restaurants Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000137/2022
- Decision date
- 9 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Kemp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs C Vickers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend a preliminary hearing on 27 March 2023 and did not comply with the orders made after that hearing. The tribunal sent her an email on 13 April 2023 about the non-compliance, but she did not reply. A strike out warning letter was then sent on 20 April 2023 asking for a response by 27 April 2023, and there was no response in any form.
The respondent applied for strike out. The tribunal applied Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure and referred to the overriding objective. It noted the two-stage approach in HM Prison Service v Dolby and Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd, first asking whether a ground for strike out was made out and then whether strike out was a proper exercise of discretion.
The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with orders and had not actively pursued the claim. It also found prejudice to the respondent, including delay and expense, and noted that the respondent could not properly prepare for a final hearing. Having given the claimant more than one opportunity to engage, the tribunal decided it was appropriate to strike out the claim on both grounds. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out the substantive claim type in the reasons, but the gov.uk listing for this case is Unfair Dismissal. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 for non-compliance with orders and because it was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
5 references- Rule 37 strike out
- overriding objective
- HM Prison Service v Dolby
- Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd
- two-stage test
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.