Case 3304289/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Curling v FAO Mark Richer - StarLeaf Limited ( In Administration) — 2024
- Case reference
- 3304289/2022
- Decision date
- 30 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Curling
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 29 May 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 24 April 2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued, and that the claimant had failed to make representations in writing, or sufficient representations, against strike out or to request a hearing.
The judgment records that no sufficient representations were made in response. On that basis, Employment Judge Quill ordered that the claim be struck out. The decision does not contain findings on the underlying employment issues or any monetary award, and it does not identify any remedy because the claim was not determined on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of the underlying claims. It records that the claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 24 April 2024, the claim had not been actively pursued, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter of 29 May 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.