Case 6007846/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P BURLISON v Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6007846/2024
- Decision date
- 11 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Glennie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P BURLISON
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Employment Tribunal struck out the claim in a short judgment dated 2 June 2025 and sent to the parties on 11 June 2025. The case was before Employment Judge Glennie sitting alone, with the claimant named as Mr P Burlison and the respondent as Bidvest Noonan (UK) Limited.
The reason given was procedural rather than substantive. By a letter dated 21 March 2025, the Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, the Tribunal decided that the claim should be struck out. The extracted text does not record any determination of the merits of the underlying complaint, any liability findings, or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim types; it records only that the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.