Case 3313154/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Butautas v Clipper Contracting Group Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3313154/2023
- Decision date
- 26 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Butautas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 9 August 2024, the tribunal gave Mr L Butautas an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing by 16 August 2024 as to why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 15 May 2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued, and the reasons set out by the respondent in emails of 6 August 2024.
The claimant did not make representations in writing and did not ask for a hearing, despite a further letter dated 20 August 2024 giving him until 30 August 2024 to respond. Employment Judge Quill therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on 13 September 2024. The judgment records no merits findings and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out 'the claim' as a whole and does not separately analyse this head; claim type assigned from the case listing metadata. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out 'the claim' as a whole and does not separately analyse this head; claim type assigned from the case listing metadata. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37
- scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious
- not complied with order dated 15 May 2024
- not actively pursued
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.