Case 6002000/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Milburn v Oxalis Logistics UK Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6002000/2023
- Decision date
- 29 February 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ayre Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Milburn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr B Milburn's claim against Oxalis Logistics UK Limited. It recorded that, by a letter dated 29 February 2024, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's Order dated 24 January 2024 and/or because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations explaining why the claim should not be struck out and did not request a hearing. The tribunal also found that he had not complied with the Unless Order dated 29 February 2024, sent to the parties on that date. On that basis, the tribunal ordered that the claim be struck out.
The extracted judgment contains no substantive findings on the underlying employment claims and records no monetary award. The decision is signed by Employment Judge Ayre and dated 22 March 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive heads of claim in the extracted text. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant did not comply with the Tribunal's Order dated 24 January 2024, did not make written representations or request a hearing in response to the letter dated 29 February 2024, and did not comply with the Unless Order dated 29 February 2024. | 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.