Case 1600921/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Cornick v Extreme heating Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1600921/2021
- Decision date
- 10 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr O Cornick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 28 April 2022, the Tribunal gave Extreme heating Ltd an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why its response to claim 1600921/2021 and its application for remedy in counterclaim 1601544/2021 should not be struck out. The Tribunal said this step was taken because the respondent had not complied with the order of 27 February 2022 and its defence to the claim and own counterclaim were not being actively pursued.
The respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the response to the claim and struck out the application for remedy in the counterclaim. The claimant's claim was listed to proceed to be heard on 6 June 2022, and the respondent was recorded as remaining entitled to notice of hearings and decisions but only to participate 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 respondent's response to claim 1600921/2021 was struck out after the Tribunal gave it an opportunity to explain why, because it had not complied with the order of 27 February 2022 and had not actively pursued its defence. The underlying claimant's claim was not determined in this judgment and was listed to proceed to a hearing on 6 June 2022. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The respondent's application for remedy in its counterclaim 1601544/2021 was struck out for the same non-compliance and failure to make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, by 28 April 2022. | 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.
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.