Case 6010655/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Mitchell v Great Glen Pubs Ltd t/a The Italian Greyhound — 2025
- Case reference
- 6010655/2025
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Mitchell
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 23 September 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claim had not been actively pursued. The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but the claimant did not reply.
Employment Judge Adkinson was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that striking out the claim would accord with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment states that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay by the claimant, giving rise to a substantial risk that a fair trial would not be possible or causing serious prejudice to the respondent, so the claim was struck out and the listed April 2027 hearing will not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claim was struck out for not being actively pursued. The listing categories mention multiple possible jurisdictions, but the judgment does not adjudicate those distinct claim types. | 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.