Case 3311885/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Matt Houston v London Borough of Hillingdon — 2025
- Case reference
- 3311885/2022
- Decision date
- 8 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Young Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Matt Houston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn a strike-out judgment dated 31 December 2024 and sent on 8 January 2025, Employment Judge Young struck out case nos 3311885/2022 and 3303852/2023 under rule 37. The judgment records that by letter dated 8 November 2024 the Tribunal had given Mr Houston an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with Rule 29, had not complied with the Tribunal’s order dated 22 April 2024, and had not been actively pursuing the case. The respondent’s correspondence dated 10 September 2024 had also stated that he had not complied with orders and was not actively pursuing the case.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the case in full under rule 37; it does not distinguish this jurisdiction code from the others listed on the GOV.UK page. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment strikes out the case in full under rule 37; it does not distinguish this jurisdiction code from the others listed on the GOV.UK page. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the case in full under rule 37; it does not distinguish this jurisdiction code from the others listed on the GOV.UK page. | 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.