Case 6014398/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Catterall v Desmond L Bannon and Sons — 2025
- Case reference
- 6014398/2024
- Decision date
- 2 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Eeley
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Catterall
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 20 March 2025, the Tribunal gave Mr A Catterall an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out for not being actively pursued. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not quantified the claim despite a request on 27 November 2024, an order on 7 January 2025, and a reminder on 19 February 2025.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim in its entirety. The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Eeley on 8 May 2025 and sent to the parties on 2 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out as part of the claim in its entirety because it had not been actively pursued and had not been quantified despite prior request, order, and reminder. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Struck out as part of the claim in its entirety because it had not been actively pursued and had not been quantified despite prior request, order, and reminder. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out as part of the claim in its entirety because it had not been actively pursued and had not been quantified despite prior request, order, and reminder. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out as part of the claim in its entirety because it had not been actively pursued and had not been quantified despite prior request, order, and reminder. | Struck out | — | — |
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.