Case 3312301/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Steven Harknett v Living Sport Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Sports Partnership Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3312301/2023
- Decision date
- 22 July 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hutchings
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Steven Harknett
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a breach of contract claim relating to an alleged failure to assign him work during garden leave. The judgment records that he accepted his notice pay was paid in full and that he had not suffered financial loss.
The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's strike-out warning and did not attend the final hearing, confirming that this was due to work commitments. The tribunal considered the available information and decided the claim should be struck out under Rule 37 because there was no reasonable prospect of success, the claimant had not complied with tribunal orders, and the claim was not actively pursued.
The respondent made a costs application at the hearing, but the judgment records that separate case management directions were sent for that application.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The tribunal struck out the breach of contract claim because it found there was no reasonable prospect of success, no jurisdiction where the claimant had suffered no financial loss, non-compliance with orders, and the claim was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.