Case 3321345/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Michael McLaughlin v Coretex Industries — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321345/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Michael McLaughlin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a rule 37 strike-out judgment in Mr Michael McLaughlin v Coretex Industries Ltd. The Tribunal sent the claimant a letter dated 18 January 2020 giving him the opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal found that the claimant failed to make representations in writing, failed to make sufficient representations, or failed to request a hearing. On that basis, the claim was struck out. The judgment does not record any substantive merits determination of the underlying claim.
The hearing listed for 17 April 2020 was cancelled as a result of the strike-out. No remedy was awarded and no compensation figure is recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment is a rule 37 strike-out decision and does not state the underlying substantive claim type in the extracted text. The claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued; the claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing after the Tribunal's letter dated 18 January 2020. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.