Case 3301810/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Stevens v Tackle boys Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3301810/2025
- Decision date
- 14 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S. Matthews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Stevens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims for unfair dismissal and a redundancy payment. The reason given was that the Claimant had not complied with the directions dated 9 April 2025. Before striking out, the Tribunal had written on 9 April 2025 giving the Claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claims should not be struck out.
The judgment also records that the claim for unauthorised deduction of wages, described as arrears of pay, continues. No remedy was assessed in this decision for the struck-out claims, and no monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal struck out this claim after the Claimant had not complied with the directions dated 9 April 2025. The Claimant had been given by letter dated 9 April 2025 an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal struck out this claim after the Claimant had not complied with the directions dated 9 April 2025. The Claimant had been given by letter dated 9 April 2025 an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. | 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.