Case 3331754/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Kuisys v BAP Transport Limited(In Administration) & Others — 2019
- Case reference
- 3331754/2018
- Decision date
- 13 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Warren Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Kuisys
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 3 June 2019, the tribunal gave Mr J Kuisys an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that the claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on 13 December 2019. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the pleaded heads of claim or any award of remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Underlying head inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only records that the claim was struck out for non-active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Underlying head inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only records that the claim was struck out for non-active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Underlying head inferred from the gov.uk listing categories; the judgment itself only records that the claim was struck out for non-active pursuit. | 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.