Case 2413530/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Coyle v Kinetic Home — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413530/2019
- Decision date
- 26 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Coyle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 9 January 2020, the tribunal gave Mr A Coyle an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal identified two possible bases: that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success because there was no legal entity as respondent, and that the claim had not been actively pursued because the claimant had not been responding to requests for clarity.
Mr Coyle did not make any written representations and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Franey struck out the claim. No monetary remedy was awarded, and the judgment records only the strike-out decision dated 14 February 2020, sent to the parties on 26 February 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the underlying legal claim in the reasons, but the case was listed as unfair dismissal. The claim was struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success, in the absence of a legal entity as respondent, and/or because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations or request a hearing after the tribunal's letter dated 9 January 2020. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- no reasonable prospect of success
- not actively pursued
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.