Case 2415411/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bury v Nationwide Crash Repair Ltd (in administration) and 2 others — 2022
- Case reference
- 2415411/2020
- Decision date
- 11 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dunlop
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr A Bury
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr A Bury, had been employed by Nationwide Crash Repair Ltd up to its collapse on or around 4 September 2020. The reasons record that parts of the business, and some employees, transferred to Redde Northgate Plc and/or FMG Repair Services Ltd, and that a group of employees brought claims arising out of the transfer issue and related claims. Mr Bury's case formed part of that group, and the preliminary hearing for the wider claims was listed for October-November 2022.
The second and third respondents applied for Mr Bury's claim to be struck out because, despite prompting, he had not complied with various case management orders. In response, Mr Bury apologised for his non-compliance, said he was dealing with personal issues, and stated, "Please feel free if you wish to remove me from the claim." The tribunal found that he had not expressly withdrawn the claim, but that his response showed he did not intend to actively pursue it at that time and that he had made no meaningful objection to the application.
Having regard to the interests of justice, including the need for the other claimants in the group to proceed with the listed preliminary hearing and for the parties to prepare efficiently, Employment Judge Dunlop struck out Mr Bury's claim against the second and third respondents on the grounds that it was not being actively pursued and that he had failed to comply with case management orders. The judgment says the claim was removed from the 9 September 2022 and 31 October to 14 November 2022 hearing list, but Mr Bury's claim against the first respondent was allowed to continue because the non-compliance identified did not relate to that claim. No hearing date had yet been fixed for the claim against the first respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claimant's claim against the second and third respondents. It noted that the claimant had not complied with various case management orders, did not appear to be actively pursuing the claim at that time, and made no meaningful objection to the strike-out application. The underlying dispute was described as an allegation that employment had transferred by operation of law and that the second and/or third respondent had unfairly dismissed him by failing to continue his employment. | 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.