Case 2201766/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Foot v The App Experts Limited STRIKE-OUT — 2021
- Case reference
- 2201766/2021
- Decision date
- 23 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Stout
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Foot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the whole of Mr C Foot's claim under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. On 17 August 2021 the Tribunal emailed the claimant asking him to provide contact details for the respondent, as the respondent had not entered a response to the claim. The claimant did not reply, and the final hearing listed for 26 and 27 August 2021 was vacated.
The Tribunal then emailed the claimant again on 24 August 2021 and ordered him to inform the Tribunal by 7 September 2021 whether he was pursuing the case or wished to withdraw it. He was warned that, if there was no reply, the claim was likely to be struck out. There was no reply.
In the absence of any response, Employment Judge Stout decided that the claim should be struck out. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying claims and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The whole of the claimant's claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal emailed the claimant on 17 August 2021 asking for contact details for the respondent, and later ordered him by email on 24 August 2021 to confirm by 7 September 2021 whether he was pursuing the case or wished to withdraw it. He did not reply, and the final hearing listed for 26 and 27 August 2021 was vacated. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.