Case 1602359/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr O Jones v Sedgemoor Caravans Limited and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 1602359/2020
- Decision date
- 27 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr O Jones
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment records that Mr O Jones brought claims against Sedgemoor Caravans Limited, Shaunessy John Abrahams, and Celtic Finance Limited, but it does not determine any substantive employment claim. Instead, the tribunal considered whether the claim should be struck out for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
By a letter dated 06 July 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The reasons identified were that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's directions dated 28 October 2021 and 06 July 2022, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. No monetary award or other substantive remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 06 July 2022 to make representations or request a hearing. The stated reasons were failure to comply with the tribunal's directions dated 28 October 2021 and 06 July 2022, and that the claim had not been actively pursued. | 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.