Case 2400454/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Barton v CMJ The Complete Fitout Company Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400454/2022
- Decision date
- 20 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Barton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 1 September 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr Barton an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why his claim should not be struck out. The Tribunal had previously emailed him on 30 June 2022 asking him to confirm whether he had now been paid what was owed and whether he wanted to withdraw the claim, following an email from Mr Eastham, described as a co-claimant, saying that both had been paid what they were owed.
Mr Barton did not make any written representations and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The hearing fixed for 5 December 2022 was vacated, and the judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to respond or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to respond or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to respond or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to respond or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not separately discuss this head; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued after the claimant failed to respond or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37
- not actively pursued
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.