Case 2602550/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Intelligent Modelling Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation) v Mr Gavin Park — 2020
- Case reference
- 2602550/2018
- Decision date
- 3 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Intelligent Modelling Ltd (In Compulsory Liquidation)
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claimant's 'contact claim' under rule 37. It recorded that, by letter dated 07 January 2020, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out on the grounds that it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued.
The claimant failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Adkinson ordered that the claim be struck out. The judgment contains no monetary award and no further findings on the underlying merits of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the 'contact claim' was struck out under rule 37. The Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 07 January 2020 to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- not actively pursued
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.