Case 6019777/2024 · Employment Tribunal
John William Douch v SalesTribe International — 2026
- Case reference
- 6019777/2024
- Decision date
- 4 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
John William Douch
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claimant's case, which was listed as 6019777/2024 between John William Douch and SalesTribe International. The tribunal said that it had written to the claimant on 24 May 2025, by a letter erroneously dated 23 April 2025, warning that strike out was being considered because the claimant had failed to respond to the tribunal letter of 3 February 2025 and the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing on that issue, but did not reply. The tribunal was satisfied that the grounds for strike out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying wage claim and no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter of 3 February 2025 and did not reply to the tribunal's warning letter dated 24 May 2025. | 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.