Case 2603016/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Boot v Dairy2door Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603016/2021
- Decision date
- 9 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Swann Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Boot
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 8 March 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr M Boot an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The Tribunal identified three bases for possible strike out: failure to comply with the Tribunal's order sent to the parties on 9 December 2021, failure to respond to correspondence dated 26 February 2022, and the fact that the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Boot did not make representations in writing, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The hearing listed for 18 March 2022 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claim after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 8 March 2022. The reasons refer to non-compliance with the order sent on 9 December 2021, failure to respond to correspondence dated 26 February 2022, and failure to pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 8 March 2022. The reasons refer to non-compliance with the order sent on 9 December 2021, failure to respond to correspondence dated 26 February 2022, and failure to pursue 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.