Case 2401635/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Adrian Etchells v Beardsells Limited (in compulsory liquidation) — 2022
- Case reference
- 2401635/2021
- Decision date
- 18 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Serr Representation
- Venue
- Manchester via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Adrian Etchells
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Serr heard the claimant's application on 8 February 2022 and granted it, striking out the respondent's response under Schedule 1 Rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (e) of the Employment Tribunal (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The written judgment records that the decision was sent to the parties on 18 February 2022.
The tribunal did not decide the underlying employment claims in this judgment. Instead, it stated that the claim was to be listed for a further hearing to make determinations on liability, remedy and costs pursuant to Rule 21, with directions for that hearing contained in the case management orders of the same date. The notes record that the reasons had been given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claimant's application to strike out the respondent's response under Schedule 1 Rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (e) was granted. The judgment does not determine the substantive employment claims; it directs that the claim remain listed for a later hearing on liability, remedy and costs under Rule 21. | Upheld | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Schedule 1 Rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (e)
- Schedule 1 Rule 21
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.