Case 2405747/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Foster v Sutura Therapeutics Limited (in voluntary liquidation) and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 2405747/2023
- Decision date
- 16 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr K Foster
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal heard the matter at Manchester by CVP on 10 December 2024 before Employment Judge Fearon sitting alone. The claimant was represented by counsel, the first respondent did not attend, and the second respondent was represented by counsel.
The judgment records that the first respondent's response was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) because it had not complied with the Tribunal Order made on 10 August 2023, and under Rule 37(1)(d) because the response and defence to the claim had not been actively pursued by the first respondent.
No written reasons were provided in the document, and the judgment does not determine the underlying claims or make any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the unfair dismissal claim; it records that the first respondent's response was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d). | Other | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not determine the disability discrimination claim; it records that the first respondent's response was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d). | Other | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(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.