Case 2601124/2025 · Employment Tribunal
David Dowse v Idverde Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 2601124/2025
- Decision date
- 17 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
David Dowse
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out David Dowse's claim against Idverde Limited. It recorded that it had written to the claimant on 27 March 2026 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimant did not reply. Employment Judge V Butler was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out would accord with the overriding objective in Rule 3, because the claimant was not engaging with the respondent or the Tribunal to progress his claim.
The claim was therefore struck out. The hearings listed for 19 June 2026 and 27, 28 and 29 March 2028 were vacated. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not set out separate reasons for this claim type; the claim type is identified from the listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not set out separate reasons for this claim type; the claim type is identified from the listing context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not set out separate reasons for this claim type; the claim type is identified from the listing context. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Victimisation | The judgment struck out the claim under Rule 38 for not being actively pursued. It did not identify the protected act or characteristic attached to victimisation; the claim type is identified from the listing context. | 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.