Case 6038061/2025 · Employment Tribunal
James Timberlake v POOLE PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED (In Administration) — 2026
- Case reference
- 6038061/2025
- Decision date
- 3 July 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
James Timberlake
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Poole Property Holdings Limited's response under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It found that the respondent had failed to comply with the Tribunal's disclosure orders and had not actively pursued the response.
The Tribunal had written to the respondent on 28 April 2026, warning that it was considering striking out the response and providing an opportunity to give reasons against strike-out or request a hearing. The respondent did not reply. Employment Judge Rayner concluded that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment did not determine the merits of James Timberlake's underlying claims or record any remedy; the respondent remained entitled to notice of hearings and decisions, with participation in any hearing limited to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the respondent's response but did not adjudicate or determine the merits of any underlying claim. | Other | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- overriding objective in Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.