Case 2407782/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Fryer v Stanton and Novelty Confectioners Ltd. — 2023
- Case reference
- 2407782/2023
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McDonald
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Fryer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing in Manchester by CVP on 14 December 2023 before Employment Judge McDonald sitting alone, the respondent applied to strike out the claimant's claim. The application relied on Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c), on the basis that the claimant had not complied with Tribunal Rules or an order, and Rule 37(1)(d), on the basis that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The tribunal refused the application. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the judgment. No substantive liability finding or monetary award is recorded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | Procedural decision only: the respondent's application dated 21 November 2023 to strike out the claimant's claim under Rule 37(1)(c) and/or Rule 37(1)(d) was refused. The judgment itself does not determine the underlying merits claim. The extracted record also contains an apparent date inconsistency at the end: it gives DATE 11 January 2024 and SENT TO THE PARTIES ON DATE 16 January 2023. | Other | — | — |
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.