Case 2304595/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Roberts v SVL Healthcare Services Limited (In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 2304595/2023
- Decision date
- 18 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hallen Claimant
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Roberts
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal had directed the claimant on 23 November 2023 to comply with case management requirements in relation to his claims for unfair constructive dismissal. The matter was listed for hearing on 25 and 26 March 2024, but the claimant did not comply with the directions and did not attend the hearing.
Before the hearing, the respondent wrote to the claimant saying it would apply to strike out the claim for failure to comply with tribunal directions and for not actively pursuing the case. When the matter returned to the tribunal on 17 April 2024, the claimant had still not responded to the respondent or the tribunal, had still not complied with the directions, and had not actively pursued the claim.
The tribunal struck out the claim under rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment contains no substantive findings on liability and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment refers to the claimant's 'claims for unfair constructive dismissal' but does not separately identify the pleaded causes of action. The claim was struck out for non-compliance with tribunal directions and failure to actively pursue it, before any merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the 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.