Case 2403297/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Mitchell v BSL Systems Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2403297/2020
- Decision date
- 14 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Mitchell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a paper judgment in case 2403297/2020, with Employment Judge Horne. By letter dated 2 November 2020 it told Mr A Mitchell that the claim appeared not to be actively pursued and was at risk of strike out under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. Mr Mitchell replied on 3 November 2020 stating, among other things, "let sleeping dogs lay" and "You won’t be hearing from me again so close the case if you want to...".
On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment contains no merits findings and records no remedy or monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out under rule 37 as not actively pursued. The judgment did not make separate merits findings on this cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 as not actively pursued. The judgment did not make separate merits findings on this cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37 as not actively pursued. The judgment did not make separate merits findings on this cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37 as not actively pursued. The judgment did not make separate merits findings on this cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.