Case 3314856/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Brooks v Newbury Land (Developments) Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314856/2019
- Decision date
- 25 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Postle
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Brooks
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Postle sitting alone by telephone on 25 August 2020. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent appeared through counsel, Ms S Robertson.
The tribunal recorded that there had been an earlier case management hearing on 7 August 2020 before Employment Judge Gumbiti-Zimuto, after the claimant had failed to attend a CVP hearing. At that hearing the tribunal noted that there had been no communication from the claimant since December 2019 and warned that strike out was being considered because the claim was not being actively pursued. The claimant was told to object in writing or request a hearing by 21 August 2020.
By the date of the later hearing on 25 August 2020, nothing further had been heard from the claimant. The tribunal therefore concluded that the claimant was not pursuing the claim. It dismissed the claims of unfair dismissal, holiday pay, and arrears of pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998 as no longer actively pursued. No substantive merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Dismissed at the preliminary hearing because the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment refers to arrears of pay under the Working Time Regulations 1998; that claim was dismissed because it was no longer actively pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.