Case 1402387/2022 · Employment Tribunal
(1) Mr C Honour (2) Mr S Bui An v Shire Oak International Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402387/2022
- Decision date
- 12 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brace Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
(1) Mr C Honour (2) Mr S Bui An
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the respondent's response to both claims. It recorded that the respondent had not attended the case management hearing on 1 March 2023 and had given no reason for its non-attendance. It also found non-compliance with the orders of Judge S Moore dated 19 January 2023 and Regional Judge S Davies dated 8 February 2023, and noted that the matters had not been actively pursued.
The tribunal had given the respondent an opportunity by case management order dated 1 March 2023 to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the responses should not be struck out. It found that the respondent failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The judgment therefore states that the response is struck out. It also records that the respondent is entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions, but will only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment says the response to this claim was struck out. The underlying substantive claim type is not stated in the text supplied. Associated with case number 1402387/2022 and claimant Mr C Honour. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment says the response to this claim was struck out. The underlying substantive claim type is not stated in the text supplied. Associated with case number 1601270/2022 and claimant Mr S Bui An. | 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.