Case 1603247/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms D Mathias v UK Windows & Doors Ltd and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 1603247/2023
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge C Sharp Dated
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Ms D Mathias
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim brought by Ms D Mathias against UK Windows & Doors Group Limited (in administration) and the Secretary of State for Business and Trade. The Tribunal had written to the claimant on 24 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant had not complied with a Tribunal Order dated 2 June 2025 and the claim had not 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 at which to do so, but the claimant did not reply. Employment Judge C Sharp was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that doing so would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3, and accordingly struck the claim out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Claim struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-compliance with a Tribunal Order dated 2 June 2025 and for not being actively pursued. The specific underlying claim type is not identified in the available text; the gov.uk listing categorises it as Protective Award/Redundancy. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (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.