Case 1601710/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M David Bunning v RDS Recycling, and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1601710/2025
- Decision date
- 2 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr M David Bunning
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that it wrote to the claimant on 18 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim. The reason given was that, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimant 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. The Employment Judge, C Sharp, was therefore satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment states simply that the claim is struck out. No substantive findings on the underlying age discrimination, breach of contract, or unlawful deduction from wages allegations were made, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not determine the merits of the age discrimination claim; it records that the claim was struck out under Rule 38 after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not determine the merits of the breach of contract claim; it records that the claim was struck out under Rule 38 after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not determine the merits of the unlawful deduction from wages claim; it records that the claim was struck out under Rule 38 after the claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter. | 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.