Case 3331689/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Day v Marshall of Cambridge Aerospace Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3331689/2018
- Decision date
- 16 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Day
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal did not determine the substantive merits of the claim. By letter dated 4 January 2023, it gave Mr A Day an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 17 November 2022 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Day did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge R Lewis ordered that the claim be struck out.
The extracted text does not identify the underlying cause of action or record any monetary remedy, so there was no substantive finding on liability or compensation.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not specify the underlying claim type. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not comply with the order dated 17 November 2022, the claim had not been actively pursued, and the claimant failed to make sufficient written representations or request a hearing after the letter dated 4 January 2023. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.