Case 6002478/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Battle v Roski Restaurant Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002478/2025
- Decision date
- 1 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Battle
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 1 October 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared that the claim had not been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but the claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge Ainscough was satisfied that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claim would accord with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was therefore struck out because it was not being actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the prompt. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the prompt. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the prompt. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the prompt. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states only that the claim is struck out; this claim type is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the prompt. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.