Case 3304292/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Walcott v Matthew Clark Bibendum Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304292/2024
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cowen Appearances
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Walcott
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 14 November 2024 the Respondent applied under rule 37(c) and/or (d) for the claim to be struck out because the Claimant had not complied with orders made on 1 October 2024 and/or had failed to actively pursue the case. By a letter dated 31 December 2024 the Tribunal gave the Claimant until 3 January 2025 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The Claimant emailed on 5 January 2025 asking for time to file documentation and saying that he wished to pursue the claim.
The Claimant did not attend the hearing on 6 January 2025 and gave no reason for his absence. The Respondent attended, with counsel and witnesses, and the Tribunal recorded that it had complied with the Tribunal's orders, including sending its witness statement to the Claimant in November 2024. After considering the correspondence and the Claimant's non-compliance and non-attendance, Employment Judge Cowen concluded that a fair hearing could not be held that day and that there were no justifiable reasons to postpone. The claim was therefore struck out, with no merits determination and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment reasons only state that the Claimant's claim was struck out and do not separate the underlying causes of action. This classification follows the case listing context supplied with the matter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment reasons only state that the Claimant's claim was struck out and do not separate the underlying causes of action. This classification follows the case listing context supplied with the matter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(c) and/or (d)
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.