Case 6014269/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Laffan-kelly v K&CJ Ltd Ltd c/o Michaela Anne Clarke — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014269/2024
- Decision date
- 16 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Livesey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Laffan-kelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr L Laffan-kelly's claim against K&CJ LTD LTD c/o Michaela Anne Clarke. On 16 September 2025 the tribunal wrote to the claimant warning that it was considering strike out because the claim appeared not to have been actively pursued, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing. He did not reply. The tribunal therefore found that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 were made out and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The claim was struck out.
No remedy was awarded and no substantive liability findings were made on the underlying claim in the extracted text. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Livesey on 9 December 2025 and sent to the parties on 7 January 2026.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the substantive claim(s); it records only that the claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.