Case 2303089/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Headstart Employment Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2303089/2019
- Decision date
- 19 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Freer
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim was received on 6 August 2019 and that a preliminary hearing took place on 23 January 2020 at London South Employment Tribunal in Croydon. The claimant did not attend that hearing, sent no representation, and did not make contact with the tribunal.
By letter dated 29 June 2020, on instructions from Employment Judge Freer, the claimant was directed to provide written reasons within 7 days why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The letter warned that failure to reply would result in the case being struck out.
By 19 May 2022, no response had been received. The tribunal noted that almost two years had elapsed since the warning letter and that the claimant had provided no representations or reasons to continue the claim. It therefore ordered that the entire claim in file 2303089/2019 be struck out as not actively pursued, relying on Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and the opportunity to make representations under Rule 37(2).
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying causes of action; it orders that the entire claim under file 2303089/2019 be struck out because it was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(2) 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.