Case 6005995/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R JOHNSON v Asda Stores Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6005995/2024
- Decision date
- 30 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R JOHNSON
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 30 October 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 6 June 2025 and because it appeared the Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to hear the claim. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply.
Employment Judge Bax 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 Tribunal found that it could not hear a breach of contract claim under article 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994 unless the claimant's employment had terminated, and the claimant was still employed by the respondent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The claim was struck out because the Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear a breach of contract claim while the claimant was still employed by the respondent. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- art. 4 of the Employment Tribunals Extension of Jurisdiction (England and Wales) Order 1994
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.