Case 2411741/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Whalley v Kerr Capital Developments Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411741/2023
- Decision date
- 15 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge KM Ross
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Whalley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 22 February 2024, the tribunal gave Mr Whalley an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out on the ground that the claims had not been actively pursued and/or there had been failure to comply with tribunal orders, as set out in the respondent representative’s letter of 24 January 2024.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge KM Ross struck out the claim. The hearing fixed for 16 and 17 September 2024 was vacated. The judgment was dated 4 March 2024 and sent to the parties on 15 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the individual pleaded cause of action in the reasons, but the case listing categories were breach of contract, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. All claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the individual pleaded cause of action in the reasons, but the case listing categories were breach of contract, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. All claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not identify the individual pleaded cause of action in the reasons, but the case listing categories were breach of contract, unfair dismissal and unlawful deduction from wages. All claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
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.