Case 1600110/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Watson v Regis Fuel Logistics (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 1600110/2025
- Decision date
- 8 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal considered strike out on its own initiative under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued. By letter dated 28 October 2025, the claimant was warned that strike out was being considered and was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing on that issue. The claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge Moore was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was consistent with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment therefore records that the claim was struck out. No substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded claims, and no monetary remedy, are set out in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded causes of action. The claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued, after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter dated 28 October 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.