Case 6030504/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Jordan v Dascher Intelligent Logistics — 2026
- Case reference
- 6030504/2025
- Decision date
- 2 January 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer On
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Jordan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a paper disposal before Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer on 2 January 2026. The Tribunal recorded that the claimant had not engaged with the claim or complied with directions. The respondent had applied for an unless order on 23 October 2025 and had also applied to strike out the claim for non-pursuit on 7 November 2025.
The judgment notes that on 7 November 2025 Employment Judge Corrigan warned the claimant that strike out was being considered and invited any objection within 14 days if the claimant wished submissions to be taken into account. By 2 January 2026 the claimant had not responded to that communication. The judge accepted that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and held that it was proportionate to strike it out.
The reason given was that the respondent should not be put to the time and cost of defending a claim that was not being pursued, and the Tribunal should not be put to the time and cost of administering and hearing such a claim. The claim was therefore struck out. The judgment also stated that any costs application arising from the respondent's defence of a claim that was never actively pursued should be made in accordance with the Rules and marked for the attention of Employment Judge Fredericks-Bowyer.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify the substantive cause of action in the body of the reasons; classification as unfair dismissal follows the case listing context. | 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.