Case 2403239/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. C James v Vodafone Automotive UK Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2403239/2022
- Decision date
- 14 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. C James
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal, sitting alone before Employment Judge Shotter, struck out the claim. The reasons record that by letter dated 14 November 2023 the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the order dated 8 August 2023 and the strike-out warning dated 14 November 2023.
The tribunal said the final hearing was listed for three days from 21 February 2024, but the claimant had disregarded and failed to comply with the case management orders made on 6 February 2023 and sent to the parties on 12 January 2023. As a result, the case was not ready for trial, there was insufficient time for the case management orders to be met, and a fair hearing could not take place. The tribunal also said that if the hearing were adjourned, it was likely the case would not be listed until 2025.
The tribunal further found that the claim had not been actively pursued. It recorded that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, or failed to make any sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not be ordered or requesting a hearing. The judgment therefore concludes that the claim was struck out. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment refers only to 'the claim' and does not specify the underlying claim type; the tribunal struck it out after the claimant failed to make representations or request a hearing in response to the strike-out warning. | 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.