Case 2304538/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Kwik-Fit (GB) Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304538/2018
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because it was not being actively pursued. The judgment records that, after a preliminary hearing on 8 July 2019, the claimant was ordered to provide a schedule of loss and disclosure of documents, but did not comply despite reminders and chasers from the respondent's solicitors.
The respondent's solicitors emailed the claimant on 14 July 2020 asking for a response and warning that they would apply for strike-out if none was received. The claimant did not reply, and the application was made on 20 July 2020. The tribunal then wrote to the claimant on 5 December 2020 saying that strike-out was being considered and inviting comments by 12 December 2020, but no reply was received.
The judgment states that the hearing listed for 3 February 2021 was vacated. The reasons section concludes that it appeared the claim was not being actively pursued, and the claim was therefore struck out. No substantive merits findings and no remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim heads; it refers only to 'the claim' and strikes it out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules 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.