Case 2500053/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Tilbury v Magical Mouse Limited t/a Brewers Arms — 2024
- Case reference
- 2500053/2024
- Decision date
- 20 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Tilbury
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D Tilbury presented his claim on 10 January 2024 saying that he had been unfairly dismissed, subjected to sexual harassment and owed wages. On 15 March 2024 Employment Judge Aspden ordered him to explain why the unfair dismissal complaint had prospects of success and to provide further information about the harassment and unpaid wages complaints. He did not respond to that order.
On 30 April 2024 the unfair dismissal complaint was dismissed. The tribunal then gave him an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the remaining complaints should not be struck out for failure to comply with the 30 April order. He did not make sufficient representations by 20 May 2024, did not attend the case management hearing on that date, and there had been no contact from him since the claim form was presented. The remaining sexual harassment and wages claims were struck out for noncompliance and because they had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed on 30 April 2024 after the claimant did not respond to the 15 March 2024 order requiring reasons why the claim had prospects of success. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Harassment | The claim was pleaded as sexual harassment and was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with the tribunal's orders and did not actively pursue the case. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was pleaded as wages owed/unpaid wages and was struck out under rule 37 after noncompliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.