Case 3302516/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C McKenzie v Billfields of London Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3302516/2023
- Decision date
- 16 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C McKenzie
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a procedural judgment only. Employment Judge Foxwell recorded that, by letter dated 28 February 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's Order dated 4 August 2024 and because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The listed hearing for 24 to 26 June 2024 was cancelled and did not take place. The extracted judgment does not determine the merits of any underlying substantive claim, and it does not record any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim types. It records that the claim was struck out after the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal's Order dated 4 August 2024 and the claim had not been actively pursued. The text also records that the claimant did not make sufficient representations in writing, or request a hearing, in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 28 February 2024. | 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.