Case 3311831/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Efetar v EGS Support Service Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 3311831/2022
- Decision date
- 8 June 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McTigue Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Efetar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a strike-out judgment in Mr J Efetar's case against EGS Support Service Limited. By letter dated 16 March 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations about why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. A public preliminary hearing was held on 17 May 2023 to consider strike out.
The claimant did not attend the hearing, did not respond in writing, and had not engaged with the tribunal since lodging the initial claim form. The tribunal recorded that it had attempted to telephone the claimant twice before the hearing but there was no answer.
On that basis, the tribunal was satisfied that rule 37(1)(d) applied because the claim had not been actively pursued, and that the claimant had been given a reasonable opportunity to argue against strike out as required by rule 37(2). The entirety of the claim was therefore struck out, and the hearing listed for 22, 23 and 24 April 2024 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a strike-out decision under rule 37 and does not identify the underlying cause or causes of action in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(d)
- rule 37(2)
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.