Jamal Scoon v Marks and Spencer’s — 2026

Case reference: 6013316/2025
Decision date: 24 August 2026
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Evans

Indexed: 15 September 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Jamal Scoon

Respondent

Marks and Spencer’s

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The tribunal struck out Jamal Scoon's claim against Marks and Spencer's under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The grounds were failure to comply with the tribunal's order dated 17 April 2025, failure to respond to the letter sent on behalf of Employment Judge Evans on 6 August 2026, and failure to actively pursue the claim.

The tribunal's letter of 6 August 2026 warned of the proposed strike-out and 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. The tribunal found that the grounds for strike-out applied and that striking out the claim accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The hearing scheduled for 17–18 September 2026 would therefore not take place. No monetary award was 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 supplied listing categorises it as unfair dismissal, but that classification cannot be confirmed from the judgment text.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

2 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.