Case 3312940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr E McHenry v Kingfisher Country Club Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3312940/2020
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ord
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr E McHenry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 27 October 2023, the tribunal gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why its response should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that the respondent had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 4 August 2023 and that the matter had not been actively pursued.
The respondent did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the response.
The respondent was told that it would still receive notice of hearings and decisions, but would only be entitled to participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge. The case was to proceed as a one-day hearing before a judge sitting alone in accordance with Rule 21.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment did not determine the substantive claims; it struck out the respondent's response after the respondent failed to comply with the tribunal's order dated 4 August 2023 and did not make sufficient representations after the 27 October 2023 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 21
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.