Case 2413949/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Flood v Pennine Manufacturing Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2413949/2019
- Decision date
- 13 November 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Feeney REPRESENTATION
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Flood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the hearing on 5 October 2020, before Employment Judge Feeney, the claimant did not attend and the respondent was represented by Mr M Seddon. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying unfair dismissal claim. Instead, it struck out the claimant's claims because the claimant had failed to comply with the tribunal's orders made on 24 February 2020 and had failed actively to pursue the proceedings, relying on Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The order also required the respondent to provide full details of its costs and time spent since the preliminary hearing within 7 days, and required the claimant to make representations within 21 days about the respondent's application for a preparation time order in respect of the respondent's defence, including the aborted hearing on 24 February 2020 and the hearing on 5 October 2020. No costs or preparation time order was finally quantified in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Claim struck out for failing to comply with the tribunal's orders of 24 February 2020 and for failure actively to pursue the proceedings under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 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.