Case 2405722/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Drummond v Quickstep Contracting Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405722/2023
- Decision date
- 19 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Drummond
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr A Drummond's claim against Quickstep Contracting Services Limited. It had previously written to him on 24 October 2023 and gave him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out.
The reason identified by the tribunal was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not been dismissed and was still an employee of the respondent, although he was unaware of that when he brought the claim. No sufficient written representations were received, and no hearing was requested.
On that basis, Employment Judge McDonald struck out the claim. The judgment records no remedy award and no further substantive determination of the underlying unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim after the claimant did not make sufficient representations, or request a hearing, in response to the letter dated 24 October 2023. The stated basis was that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because the claimant had not been dismissed and remained an employee of the respondent, although he was unaware of that when he brought the claim. | 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.