Case 6006129/2024 · Employment Tribunal
D Rodger v Stuart Wallice — 2025
- Case reference
- 6006129/2024
- Decision date
- 17 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
D Rodger
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 17 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because the claimant appeared not to have complied with tribunal orders dated 28 July 2025 and 22 October 2025.
The correspondence 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, and Employment Judge Cadney was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The short judgment does not separately adjudicate the listed Breach of Contract category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The short judgment does not separately adjudicate the listed Unlawful Deduction from Wages category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment strikes out the claim for non-compliance with tribunal orders. The short judgment does not separately adjudicate the listed Working Time Regulations category. | 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.