Case 6025144/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr. J. Borland v Peacocks medical group — 2025
- Case reference
- 6025144/2025
- Decision date
- 18 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge T.R. Smith
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr. J. Borland
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 18 November 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim because it appeared, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claim had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but did not reply.
Employment Judge T.R. Smith was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike out was in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The reason given was that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, so the claim was struck out and the hearing listed for 30 January 2026 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim after the claimant did not respond to a warning letter. It did not set out separate reasoning for this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim after the claimant did not respond to a warning letter. It did not set out separate reasoning for this claim type. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3
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.