Case 6001430/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Green v One Beyond Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6001430/2025
- Decision date
- 26 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anderson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr P Green's claim under Rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It had written to him on 26 September 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the unfair dismissal claim because it appeared he did not have two years' service, and that same correspondence also sought information about the unpaid wages claim.
The respondent applied on 30 October 2025 to strike out the claims on the ground that they were not being actively pursued, and the claimant was copied into that application. The Tribunal recorded that there had been no correspondence from the claimant and no representations in response to either the warning or the strike-out application.
The Tribunal held that the claimant had received sufficient notification under Rule 38(2), had had a reasonable opportunity to respond, and had not done so. It was satisfied that the grounds for strike out were made out and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was therefore struck out by Employment Judge Anderson on 12 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | On 26 September 2025 the Tribunal warned that it was considering strike out because the claimant appeared not to have two years' service. The claim was later struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The 26 September 2025 correspondence also sought information about the unpaid wages claim, and the respondent's 30 October 2025 strike-out application covered all claims. This claim was struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 38(2) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 overriding objective
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.