Case 2402559/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Adeola v Vision on Services GB Ltd and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 2402559/2022
- Decision date
- 24 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge D Wright
- Venue
- Liverpool via CVP
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr C Adeola
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a preliminary hearing on 23 January 2023 after an earlier preliminary hearing on 7 October 2022, at which no parties appeared. Following that earlier hearing, the Employment Judge issued a strike out warning to the Claimant and the Second Respondent. The First Respondent had not filed a Response. No party made written representations or requested a hearing.
The Tribunal recorded that the parties were told on 17 November 2022 that the matter would be listed for a preliminary hearing to determine whether the claim should be struck out, and they were reminded again the day before the hearing when the CVP link was sent. The Claimant did not attend and did not provide written notice explaining why he could not attend.
On that basis, Employment Judge D Wright found that the Claimant was not actively pursuing the case and struck out the claim under Rule 37 on the basis that it had not been actively pursued and/or that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably. Because the claim was struck out, it was not necessary to deal with the strike out warning against the Second Respondent. All future listings, including the final hearing listed for 17 April 2023, were vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the underlying substantive causes of action; it strikes out the claim under Rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued and/or the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.