Case 2410003/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S O’Brien v Royal Liverpool & Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2410003/2019
- Decision date
- 22 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S O’Brien
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not attend the hearing on 16 September 2019, was not represented, and did not contact the tribunal to explain his non-attendance.
The tribunal issued a notice on 22 October 2019 warning that strike-out was being considered on the ground that the claim was not being actively pursued and gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations. The initial deadline for representations was extended because of delays in sending the notice, but the claimant still made no representations by the extended deadline.
The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying employment claims and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying substantive claim types; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out for not being actively pursued under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.