Case 2600257/2025 · Employment Tribunal
A J Watson v Darley Abbey Village Stores Limited (In Liquidation) — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600257/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
A J Watson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 14 November 2025 the Tribunal wrote to A J Watson warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 2 September 2025. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing to do so, but the claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge Adkinson said he was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 applied. He also said that striking out the claim was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3, because of the non-compliance and the lack of any representation explaining why the claim should not be struck out. The judgment therefore struck out the claim and recorded no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type; it states only that the claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 2 September 2025 after the claimant did not respond to the warning letter dated 14 November 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.