Case 2400511/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D P Noble Mr J O White Mr K Evans v Device Revive Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2400511/2024
- Decision date
- 15 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D P Noble Mr J O White Mr K Evans
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with case numbers 2400511/2024, 2400512/2024 and 2400513/2024 together. By letter dated 6 November 2024, it gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claims should not be struck out. The reasons identified were that the claims had since been paid by the Respondent, making continuation wholly unnecessary and disproportionate, and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
The claimants did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Batten struck out the claims. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on liability, and it does not set out any monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type for this case number. The claim was struck out after the Tribunal's 6 November 2024 letter and no sufficient representations or hearing request were made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type for this case number. The claim was struck out after the Tribunal's 6 November 2024 letter and no sufficient representations or hearing request were made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type for this case number. The claim was struck out after the Tribunal's 6 November 2024 letter and no sufficient representations or hearing request were made. | Struck out | — | — |
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.