Case 2411486/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Knowles v Sankey Valley Tyres Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411486/2023
- Decision date
- 1 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Knowles
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 after the respondent did not reply to Judge Holmes's correspondence of 31 January 2024. The tribunal recorded that the response contained no substantive information and that both Judge Holmes and Employment Judge Tobin concluded the respondent had no reasonable prospects of successfully defending the claim.
The tribunal also found that the respondent had failed to make written representations, or any sufficient representations, explaining why strike-out should not be ordered. The respondent remained entitled to notice of future hearings and decisions, but could only take part in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The judgment did not decide the underlying substantive claim and did not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the respondent's response under rule 37(1)(a) after no response to Judge Holmes's correspondence dated 31 January 2024. The judgment did not determine the underlying merits of the claimant's case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(a) 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.