Case 6001164/2025 · Employment Tribunal
C Gibson v Toolstation and 1 other — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001164/2025
- Decision date
- 21 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson
Parties
3 namedClaimant
C Gibson
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal, sitting alone and under Employment Judge Dawson, struck out the claim. It recorded that by letter dated 27 August 2025 the Tribunal warned the claimant that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 31 March 2025.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing on that issue, but did not reply. On that basis the Tribunal struck out the claim. No substantive findings on liability or remedy were made in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive pleaded causes of action in the text supplied. It records that the Tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 31 March 2025 and did not respond to the warning letter dated 27 August 2025. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.