Case 1400205/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Austin-Lomas v Climate Light Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 1400205/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harper MBE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Austin-Lomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment, not a substantive liability decision. Employment Judge Harper MBE recorded that by email dated 28 June 2019 the tribunal gave Climate Light Ltd an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out, because the response had not been actively pursued and the respondent had not complied with tribunal orders.
The respondent did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the response. The judgment does not determine the merits of the claimant's substantive employment claims.
The tribunal noted that the respondent would still be entitled to notice of any future hearings and decisions, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the respondent's response under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued and the respondent had not complied with tribunal orders. The substantive underlying claim was not determined in this decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.