Case 2306264/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr David Arnold v Mr Jason Payne and Mr John Hales — 2024
- Case reference
- 2306264/2023
- Decision date
- 12 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr David Arnold
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that this case was one of two claims brought by Mr David Arnold arising out of his dismissal by Royal Mail. It noted that the first claim, 2305720/2023, had been withdrawn by email from the claimant’s representative the day before a preliminary hearing listed for 8 May 2024.
For this claim, the tribunal sent a letter dated 7 June 2024 asking the claimant to confirm whether both claims were withdrawn. The claimant was given 21 days to respond and warned that failure to do so might result in the claim being struck out.
No response was received to that letter, and the tribunal noted that there had in fact been no correspondence on the file since November 2023. In those circumstances, Employment Judge Fowell concluded that the claimant did not wish to pursue the claim any further and struck it out under Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure because it had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive legal label of the remaining claim in the extracted text. It records that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.