Case 6005824/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Depczynski v Cramlington Precision Forge Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005824/2025
- Decision date
- 3 December 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspden
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Depczynski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it appeared not to have been actively pursued. On 25 July 2025 the tribunal sent an order warning that strike out was being considered and gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge Aspden said the claimant did not attend the hearing on 9 July 2025, did not tell the tribunal that he would not be able to attend, did not complete the agenda sent in advance, and has not offered any explanation since the hearing for his non-attendance or for why the claim should not be struck out. The judge was satisfied that strike out was appropriate and in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The hearing listed for 12 December 2025 was therefore not to take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded claim type; it only records that 'the claim' was struck out under Rule 38 for not being actively pursued. | 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.