Case 6022160/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr N Martin v Signature Clinic Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 6022160/2024
- Decision date
- 2 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moore
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr N Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 4 September 2025, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal said strike out was under consideration because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the claim, including because the proceedings had been conducted in a way said to be scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious, there had been non-compliance with the tribunal's orders dated 26 March 2025, there had been no disclosure or cooperation regarding the bundle, witness statements had not been exchanged, and the claim had not been actively pursued.
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. The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the underlying employment claims, and it does not award any remedy.
The judgment was approved by Employment Judge Moore on 18 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 2 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that 'the claim is struck out' because it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the claim, including for non-compliance with tribunal orders, lack of disclosure/cooperation on the bundle, no exchanged witness statements, and because the claim had not been actively pursued. No substantive merits determination is recorded. | 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.