Case 2203491/2025 · Employment Tribunal
James Newell v Kay International plc — 2026
- Case reference
- 2203491/2025
- Decision date
- 13 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Newell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim. By a letter dated 13 January 2026, the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out.
The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with an order of Employment Judge Gidney made on 14 October 2025 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make written representations, and the hearing fixed for 20 February 2026 was cancelled.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as breach of contract. The short judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately address the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as unfair dismissal. The short judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately address the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as unlawful deduction from wages. The short judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately address the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing categorises the case as Working Time Regulations. The short judgment strikes out the claim as a whole and does not separately address the merits of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- ET Rule 38(1)(c)
- ET Rule 38(1)(d)
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.