Case 1806673/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Williams v Interim Health and Fitness Ltd (In Liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 1806673/2020
- Decision date
- 21 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Miller Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a judgment dated 21 January 2022, Employment Judge Miller Date struck out the respondent's response in the case brought by Mr A Williams against Interim Health and Fitness Ltd (In Liquidation). The Tribunal recorded that, by letter dated 12 January 2022, the respondent had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the response should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order of 22 September 2021 and because the matter had not been actively pursued. The respondent did not make representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The judgment states that it was not appropriate to issue a judgment on the merits. The Tribunal noted that it may be necessary to consider jurisdiction questions arising from the claimant's employment status, and that it may also need to be satisfied as to the amount of compensation claimed, particularly whether the claimant had reasonably mitigated his losses. The case remained listed for hearing on 27 January 2022 by video, with the hearing length reduced to one day.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the underlying substantive claims. It records only that the respondent's response was struck out because it had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 22 September 2021 and the response 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.