Case 6013942/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Mortimore v Boots Management Services Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6013942/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Mr
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Mortimore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant issued what the tribunal described as an incoherent and unparticularised claim on 4 October 2024. He did not attend a preliminary hearing listed on 31 December 2024, and the matter was listed for a further hearing. He was ordered to provide full particulars of his claimed disability and claims by 14 January 2025, with a warning that non-compliance could lead to strike-out.
The claimant did not respond to that direction. The case was relisted for a further hearing on 3 February 2025, but the claimant again did not attend, despite joining instructions being sent to his email address and a phone call from the clerk going to voicemail.
The tribunal found that the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably and had failed to comply with a tribunal order within the meaning of Rule 38 of the 2024 Rules. Having given him an opportunity to make representations by attending the hearing, the tribunal exercised its discretion to strike out the claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment states that the claims were struck out but does not particularise the individual causes of action. It refers to an order requiring particulars of the claimant's claimed disability and his claims. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the 2024 Rules
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.