Case 2601665/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Wells v Gooseberry Shop Ltd (in liquidation) and New Human Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2601665/2022
- Decision date
- 31 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 31 March 2023, the Tribunal gave the Second Respondent an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the proceedings had been conducted unreasonably by or on behalf of the Second Respondent, that it had failed to comply with orders made before and after the matter was considered by Employment Judge Butler, and that the response had not been actively pursued because of persistent non-compliance with orders.
The Second Respondent did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Swann struck out the Second Respondent's response.
The judgment does not record any determination of the substantive employment claims or any monetary award. It states that the Second Respondent remains entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions on that part, but may only participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only that the Second Respondent's response was struck out after it failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. It does not determine the underlying merits of the claim. | 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.