Case 1405228/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Gray v Reed Specialist Recruitment — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405228/2018
- Decision date
- 11 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Gray
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 27 January 2020, the Tribunal told Mr A Gray that his claim might be struck out because it had not been actively pursued and invited him to make written representations or request a hearing. The judgment records that he did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Dawson therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on 11 February 2020. The judgment says the hearing listed for 1 April 2020 would not take place. No remedy was awarded or assessed.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 for failure to pursue it; the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' and does not split the result between heads of claim. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 for failure to pursue it; the judgment itself refers only to 'the claim' and does not split the result between heads of claim. This claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.