Mr E Hanley v Olly Cleve — 2020

Case reference: 2600275/2020
Decision date: 21 July 2020
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Rachel Broughton

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr E Hanley

Respondent

Olly Cleve

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

This was a rule 37 strike-out judgment. The Tribunal recorded that by letter dated 21 May 2020 it gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because he had failed to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 17 April 2020. The Tribunal then gave a further and final opportunity to comply before 17 July 2020 in a letter dated 3 July 2020.

The Tribunal found that the claimant had not complied with the order dated 17 April 2020. It also found that he had failed to make written representations, or any sufficient representations, explaining why the claim should not be struck out, and had failed to request a hearing. The judgment therefore states that the claim is struck out. No merits determination or remedy award is recorded in the extracted text.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s); it records only that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for non-compliance with an order of 17 April 2020.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.