Case 2404347/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hind v A. P. Burt & Sons Ltd (In Creditors Voluntary Liquidation) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2404347/2017
- Decision date
- 4 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hind
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claim had not been actively pursued. On 3 October 2020 the claimant was asked to confirm his position by 12 October 2020, but he did not respond. Employment Judge Bax then reminded him on 24 November 2020 to comply with that direction by return, and again there was no response.
By letter dated 29 December 2020, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The letter warned that consideration was being given to striking out the claim for non-pursuit and required any objection or hearing request by 8 January 2021.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive determination on the merits and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trade union | Struck out under rule 37 because the claim had not been actively pursued. The tribunal sent directions on 3 October 2020 and 24 November 2020, then a warning letter on 29 December 2020, but the claimant did not respond or make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | 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.