Case 2603588/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. N Thompson v Hollis House Investments Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2603588/2019
- Decision date
- 26 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heap Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. N Thompson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 26 September 2020, the Tribunal gave Hollis House Investments Limited an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why its response should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The respondent did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Heap therefore struck out the response under rule 37. The judgment records that the respondent remains entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the Tribunal, but may only participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The judgment does not determine the merits of the underlying employment claims or record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not adjudicate the substantive tribunal claims; it strikes out the respondent's response under rule 37 because the response had not been actively pursued and the respondent did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.