Case 2404345/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Williams v Counterline Limited HELD AT: Liverpool (in chambers) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2404345/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Williams
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought proceedings arising from his employment as a fork lift truck driver, which ended on 9 July 2024. His claim form identified complaints including constructive unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, redundancy payment, breach of contract, holiday pay and unlawful deduction from wages. The respondent resisted the claims.
The Tribunal considered the respondent's strike-out application and the claimant's application for a stay in chambers. It found that many months had elapsed after the claimant's father became involved as lay representative, but basic information had not been obtained from the claimant and no evidence had been provided to support complete inactivity until the claimant's possible release from custody.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had been responsible for inordinate and inexcusable delay and that serious prejudice had been caused to the respondent. The claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued, so the stay application did not need to be considered.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Constructive dismissal | The claimant identified constructive unfair dismissal in the claim form. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant identified disability discrimination and referred to carpal tunnel syndrome. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Redundancy | The claimant identified a redundancy payment complaint and referred to a sham redundancy and failure to consult. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The claimant identified breach of contract in the claim form. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The claimant identified holiday pay in the claim form. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claimant identified unlawful deduction from wages in the claim form. The whole claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.