Case 6000697/2024 · Employment Tribunal
L Gibson v Mannan Consultancy Limited trading as Cre8Staff Recruitment — 2025
- Case reference
- 6000697/2024
- Decision date
- 25 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
L Gibson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningIn this judgment, Employment Judge Rayner struck out the claim in case number 6000697/2024 between L Gibson and Mannan Consultancy Limited trading as Cre8Staff Recruitment. The tribunal recorded that by letter dated 16 September 2025 the claimant was given an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out.
The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal order dated 22 July 2025 or the strike-out warning dated 16 September 2025, did not attend the telephone case management hearing on 22 July 2025, and had not actively pursued the case. The claimant did not make written representations, or made no sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment also records that the hearing listed for 6 to 9 July 2026 will not take place. The judgment does not record any substantive determination on liability or any monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded cause(s) of action; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance, non-attendance at the 22 July 2025 telephone case management hearing, and lack of active pursuit. | 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.