Case 2225459/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr DC Borthwick v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2225459/2024
- Decision date
- 7 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr DC Borthwick
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 13 February 2025. The tribunal clerk emailed and attempted to call him, but no contact was made. The respondent's representative also reported no recent contact from the claimant, and the tribunal considered that he may have abandoned the claim.
The tribunal made an order requiring the claimant to confirm by 27 February 2025 if he was pursuing the claim, warning that the claim was likely to be struck out if he did not respond. No reply was received.
Employment Judge Baty found that the claimant had not been actively pursuing the claim, that there was nothing to indicate he would do so in future, and that the respondent faced considerable ongoing prejudice in defending a claim that was not being pursued. The claim was struck out in its entirety and the final hearing listed for 8-9 July 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The reasons do not set out the substantive allegations; this classification follows the listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim in its entirety under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. The reasons do not set out the substantive allegations; this classification follows the listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The listing category includes Time to Train, which is not a locked taxonomy category. The judgment struck out the claim in its entirety because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.