Case 1304133/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Mellors v The Hungry Hippo — 2025
- Case reference
- 1304133/2021
- Decision date
- 24 July 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Mellors
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 3 June 2025, the Tribunal gave Mr L Mellors an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The Tribunal said this was because he had failed to reply to letters dated 12 November 2022 and 15 November 2023, and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Mellors did not make representations in writing, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying merits and no monetary award.
The judgment is dated 24 July 2025 and was signed by Employment Judge Wedderspoon.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The published judgment does not specify the pleaded claim type, but the case listing identifies age discrimination as one of the listed categories. The judgment states that the claim was struck out after the claimant did not respond to earlier Tribunal correspondence or make sufficient representations to avoid strike-out. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The published judgment does not specify the pleaded claim type, but the case listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages as one of the listed categories. The judgment states that the claim was struck out because the claimant did not respond to earlier Tribunal correspondence 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.