Case 1601696/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Brown Mr I Brown v M&E Pro Limited (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2026
- Case reference
- 1601696/2025
- Decision date
- 2 April 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Jenkins Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Brown Mr I Brown
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 5 March 2026 the tribunal wrote to the claimants warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimants an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so.
The claimants did not reply. Judge Jenkins Dated was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claims would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment dated 31 March 2026 therefore struck out the claims in case numbers 1601696/2025 and 1601697/2025. No substantive merits findings or monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the underlying head of claim; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38 for failure actively to pursue it. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not identify the underlying head of claim; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing category. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38 for failure actively to pursue it. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.