Case 1800834/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Priestley v 3 Phase Electrical Engineering (In Compulsory Liquidation) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1800834/2022
- Decision date
- 17 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Priestley
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr S Priestley's claim against 3 Phase Electrical Engineering (In Compulsory Liquidation). Employment Judge JM Wade recorded that, by a letter dated 9 August 2022, the claimant had been told that permission from the court was required for the proceedings to continue, but he did not provide any copy of that permission.
The tribunal also noted that, by a letter dated 27 February 2023, the claimant was given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. He did not make representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive liability findings or monetary award were 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. It recorded that, by a letter dated 9 August 2022, the claimant had been informed that permission from the court was needed for the proceedings to continue, but he did not provide a copy of any such permission. It also recorded that, by letter dated 27 February 2023, the claimant was invited to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued, but he made no sufficient representations and did not request a hearing. | 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.