Case 6014219/2024 · Employment Tribunal
S Coker v British Airways plc — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014219/2024
- Decision date
- 1 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Graham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
S Coker
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 1 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The stated grounds were that the claimant had not complied with the order dated 26 September 2025 to provide medical evidence for non-attendance in September 2025, and that the claim had not been actively pursued because the claimant had failed to attend two preliminary hearings.
The claimant did not reply to the warning letter or request a hearing. The Tribunal was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3, because the claimant had taken no steps to progress the case or comply with the order and a fair hearing was no longer possible.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action; it records only that 'the claim' was struck out under Rule 38 because the claimant had not complied with the order dated 26 September 2025, had not actively pursued the claim, and did not reply to the warning letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 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.