Case 2500408/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Paul Gilby v Brian Colledge — 2023
- Case reference
- 2500408/2023
- Decision date
- 14 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morris
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Paul Gilby
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal held a telephone preliminary hearing on 20 July 2023. The respondent attended, but the claimant did not attend and neither did the claimant's son, who was named as his representative. The tribunal was unable to contact them on the telephone numbers provided on the claim form.
After that hearing, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The claimant's son sent short emails on 31 July 2023, 6 September 2023 and 19 September 2023 seeking to have the matter reheard and saying the tribunal had the wrong number for the claimant, but no detailed explanation for the non-attendance was provided.
On 2 October 2023 the tribunal sent notice of a preliminary hearing for 14 November 2023 and warned that the claimant's 19 September 2023 email would not be considered unless it was copied to the respondent and the tribunal was told that had been done. No such confirmation was received. The tribunal found that the claimant received the notice, failed to copy the email to the respondent, failed to comply with the order, and had no acceptable explanation for not attending either the 20 July 2023 hearing or the later hearing. The claim was therefore struck out under rule 37. The reasons include one reference to a hearing on 14 October 2023, but the notice and final reasons otherwise refer to 14 November 2023.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37 for failure actively to pursue it. No substantive merits findings were made. | 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.