Case 1405244/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Wheatley v Voyage 1 Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 1405244/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Wheatley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. Employment Judge Livesey had required the parties to provide witness numbers and a time estimate for a final hearing by 23 December 2019, and Employment Judge Bax later required the Claimant to respond by 16 January 2020. The Claimant did not respond to those directions.
After the Tribunal warned the Claimant on 27 January 2020 that strike out was being considered because the claim was not being actively pursued, the Claimant's representative referred to a delay connected with police matters and asked about postponement. Employment Judge Cadney then sought clarification by 20 February 2020, but the Claimant did not respond.
The Tribunal gave a further strike-out warning on 26 February 2020 and allowed the Claimant until 4 March 2020 to make representations or request a hearing. The Claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The Tribunal concluded that the Claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and had failed to comply with Tribunal orders, so the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 because it was not being actively pursued and because of failures to comply with Tribunal orders. The judgment text does not identify the specific underlying pleaded causes of action. | 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.