Case 2500702/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Burns v Nerams Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2500702/2024
- Decision date
- 3 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Booth
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Burns
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 4 April 2025, the Tribunal gave Mr Burns an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the proceedings had been conducted in a manner described as scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, that the claim had not been actively pursued, and that Mr Burns had not complied with the Employment Judge Booth order dated 8 February 2025 or Orders 4 and 5 made by Employment Judge T.R. Smith on 24 February 2025.
The judgment records that Mr Burns failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. On that basis, the Tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive merits findings or remedy findings are recorded in the judgment.
The judgment is a short strike-out decision only. It does not identify the underlying claim type, make any finding on liability, or award any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type. It records only that 'the claim is struck out' after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's strike-out warning letter. | 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.