Case 1303647/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Timothy Haydock v Advantis Credit Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303647/2022
- Decision date
- 17 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dean Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Timothy Haydock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Timothy Haydock, brought a claim against Advantis Credit Ltd. By letter dated 9 February 2023, the Tribunal gave him an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 1 February 2023 and the claim had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal recorded that Mr Haydock failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, explaining why the claim should not be struck out, and he did not request a hearing. On that basis, the claim was struck out.
The judgment does not record any substantive determination of the underlying unfair dismissal complaint, nor does it record any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal's order dated 1 February 2023 and did not actively pursue the claim. The claimant was given an opportunity by letter dated 9 February 2023 to make representations or request a hearing, but did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.