Case 3321038/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Stewart v Hifi Industrial Film — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321038/2019
- Decision date
- 17 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Stewart
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 9 February 2020, the tribunal gave Mr M Stewart an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why his claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that he had not complied with the tribunal's order of 10 December 2019 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Stewart did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Laidler struck out the claim on 17 April 2020 under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment does not separate this head from the rest of the case; it states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with the tribunal's order dated 10 December 2019 and had not actively pursued the case. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separate this head from the rest of the case; it states that the claim was struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with the tribunal's order dated 10 December 2019 and had not actively pursued the case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.