Case 2406467/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Cass v GovData Ltd STRIKE OUT — 2022
- Case reference
- 2406467/2022
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McCarthy Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Cass
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the respondent GovData Ltd's employer contract claim. It acted under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 and struck the claim out on the basis that it was not being actively pursued and/or for non-compliance with an order of the tribunal.
The reasons recorded that the respondent failed to attend or be represented at the full hearing on 30 September 2022, and no explanation or other application had been provided. The tribunal then issued a strike-out warning on its own initiative on the same day and gave the respondent a reasonable opportunity under rule 37(2) to make written representations or request a hearing before any strike-out order was made.
The respondent replied on 14 October 2022 saying it would like to continue with the claim and did not want it struck out, but it did not provide representations explaining why the claim should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The tribunal recorded that no reply with representations was made in time or at all, and accordingly struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the respondent's employer contract claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because it was not being actively pursued and/or for non-compliance with an order. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37(2) 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.