Case 1303014/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Letts v Executive Event Solution Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 1303014/2023
- Decision date
- 4 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Broughton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Letts
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 8 August 2023, the tribunal told Mr M Letts that his claim might be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. He was given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing explaining why strike-out should not follow.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Broughton therefore struck out the claim on 4 January 2024. The judgment records no merits determination and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not identify the underlying allegation in the text itself; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The judgment states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the tribunal's letter dated 8 August 2023. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment does not identify the underlying allegation in the text itself; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The judgment states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the tribunal's letter dated 8 August 2023. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the underlying allegation in the text itself; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The judgment states only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued after the tribunal's letter dated 8 August 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
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.