Case 3305075/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Thomson v Furniture Village Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305075/2020
- Decision date
- 21 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Thomson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. By letter dated 14 October 2022, the tribunal gave the claimant until 20 October 2022 to make written representations or request a hearing explaining why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant did neither.
The respondent had made an application dated 20 September 2022, to which the claimant did not respond. The tribunal noted that the respondent's representative had previously written on 1 August 2022 and sent a chaser on 15 August 2022 warning that a strike-out application would be made if there was no response. The claimant replied on 15 and 22 August 2022 promising to supply documents, but had not done so by 20 September 2022.
Further emails were sent to the tribunal on 27 September, 4 October, and 11 October 2022, copied to the claimant. The tribunal found that the claimant had not responded to any of this correspondence and was not actively pursuing the claim. The hearing listed for 24 to 27 October 2022 was cancelled and did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type(s); it records only that 'the claim' was struck out for not being actively pursued. | 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.