Case 6010192/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Andre Gittens v Jackson Well Recruitment Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6010192/2025
- Decision date
- 7 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Andre Gittens
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAndre Gittens's claim against Jackson Well Recruitment was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal wrote to the claimant on 13 January 2026 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The letter 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 Holmes found that the grounds for striking out the claim applied and that doing so accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judge stated that the tribunal and respondent should not be troubled by a claim the claimant had shown no interest in pursuing. No monetary award is recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive claim type. The listing category of unlawful deduction from wages is not confirmed by the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (overriding objective)
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.