Case 2413197/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Armer v Urban Evolution — 2024
- Case reference
- 2413197/2023
- Decision date
- 9 August 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Armer
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 22 July 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr K Armer an opportunity to make written representations or to request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated concerns were that he had not complied with the case management orders dated 16 January 2024, had not attended the preliminary hearing on 22 July 2024 without providing an explanation, and had not actively pursued the claim.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. The judgment states that the hearing fixed for 3 September 2024 would not take place.
The judgment does not record a substantive merits determination or any monetary award. It is an administrative strike-out decision based on non-compliance, non-attendance, and lack of active pursuit of the proceedings.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not allocate the strike-out to this head separately; the order struck out the claim as a whole. The case listing identified unfair dismissal as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not allocate the strike-out to this head separately; the order struck out the claim as a whole. The case listing identified unlawful deduction from wages as one of the claim categories. | 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.