Peter Nicholson v Supreme CBD Ltd — 2025

The claim came before Employment Judge Dennehy at a public preliminary hearing in Manchester by CVP on 7 October 2025. The claimant did not attend. The respondent was represented by Mr James Magill, solicitor, and called Ms Lennon and Mr Fowler. The claimant had presented complaints described in the judgment as age-related harassment, unlawful deduction of wages for the final wage and commission, failure to pay notice pay, and failure to provide a written statement of particulars.

The tribunal noted that a case management order had been made on 14 March 2025 and that Judge Butler had warned the parties on 7 August 2025 that strike out for non-compliance might be considered. It found that the claimant had not complied with the order, that there had been no disclosure to the respondent, and that no witness statement had been exchanged. The last email from the claimant's representative was on 21 July 2025, stating that the claimant was in prison for a motoring offence and seeking an extension, but no further information or contact followed.

Applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2024, and referring to HM Prison Service v Dolby, Hassan v Tesco Stores Ltd, Mbuisa v Cygnet Healthcare Ltd, North Glamorgan NHS Trust v Ezsias, Abertawe Bro Morgannwg University Health Board v Ferguson, Cox v Adecco and ors, and Birkett v James, the tribunal found that the claim had not been actively pursued and that a fair hearing was no longer possible. It also found that the respondent would be prejudiced by the lack of disclosure and progress, and that no lesser sanction was appropriate.

The claimant's claim was therefore struck out under rule 38(1)(c), (d) and (e). The respondent's costs application for £1,000 excluding VAT was noted, but the judgment does not record any costs award.