Case 2302470/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E Neves v JB Global Ltd — 2018
- Case reference
- 2302470/2018
- Decision date
- 4 December 2018
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E Neves
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the telephone preliminary hearing on 27 September 2018, orders were made for the progression of the matter to a hearing. The respondent applied on 31 October 2018 for the claim to be struck out because the claimant had not complied with those orders, and the application was copied to the claimant's representative. The written order was signed on 5 November 2018 and sent to the parties on 4 December 2018, with some dates extended.
Employment Judge Corrigan noted in a cover note that the claimant's representative should ensure compliance with the written order and that the respondent's representative should alert the Tribunal to any further failures to comply. The respondent then wrote again on 11 December 2018 asking when the claimant would comply, and on 21 December 2018 made a second strike-out application. The orders also required further information and a schedule of loss to be provided to the Tribunal.
By 23 January 2019, the only communication from the claimant's representative to the Tribunal was dates to avoid, dated 4 October 2018. The Tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with the order dated 5 November 2018, was not actively pursuing the claim, and had failed to make written representations or request a hearing. The claim was therefore struck out, and the preliminary hearing listed for 19 February 2019 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment records only that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with orders. It does not specify the underlying pleaded causes of action in the judgment text supplied. | 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.