Case 6015493/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Knight v Norfolk Broads Direct Limited RECORD OF A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2025
- Case reference
- 6015493/2024
- Decision date
- 23 September 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harrison Representation
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Knight
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing in Mr J Knight's case against Norfolk Broads Direct Limited, heard by Employment Judge Harrison on 14 July 2025. The only recorded decision was on the claimant's application to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) on the basis that the respondent had not complied with the tribunal rules or a tribunal order.
The tribunal refused that application. The record does not give written reasons, because reasons were given orally at the hearing and the written record states that written reasons will not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note on the judgment.
No substantive liability findings or remedy award are set out in this record. The judgment therefore records only that the strike-out application failed and does not determine the underlying employment claim on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment is a public preliminary hearing record. The tribunal refused the claimant's application to strike out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because of the respondent's alleged non-compliance with tribunal rules or an order. No substantive employment claim was determined in the text provided. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
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.