Case 3314610/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr s jones v Mussett Aeospace and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 3314610/2023
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr s jones
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 November 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore dismissed/struck out the claim. The reasons section contains no findings on the underlying merits of any employment claim and no remedy was awarded.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Postle on 31 March 2025.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not identify the individual claims in the reasons section; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category and was disposed of because the claim was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not identify the individual claims in the reasons section; this claim type is inferred from the gov.uk listing category and was disposed of because the claim was not actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.