Case 2500312/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Hope v Parkdean Resorts UK Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500312/2022
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Hope
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal sought information from the claimant by letter dated 25 April 2022 and asked him to reply by 2 May 2022. After no reply, further Tribunal letters on 11 May and 16 May 2022 asked him to respond and gave him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The claimant emailed on 24 May 2022 apologising for the delay, saying he had been in hospital and asking for an extension. The Tribunal noted that response but found that he had failed to make written representations, or sufficient representations, explaining why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing.
The claimant also did not dial in to the preliminary telephone hearing listed for 25 May 2022, despite notice having been sent on 29 March 2022 with the details needed to take part. A Tribunal clerk tried to telephone him and left a voicemail, but he did not respond. In those circumstances, the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim for not being actively pursued. The text does not adjudicate the underlying listed claim categories or identify which pleaded claims remained before the Tribunal. | 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.