Case 6040019/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Paul Armstrong v Bae Systems Marine Limited — 2026
- Case reference
- 6040019/2025
- Decision date
- 7 September 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Woodhead Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Paul Armstrong
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningPaul Armstrong's claim against BAE Systems Marine Limited was struck out for failure to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 31 March 2026. On 29 July 2026, the Tribunal wrote to Armstrong warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The letter gave him an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. He did not reply.
Employment Judge Woodhead found that the grounds for striking out under Rule 38 applied and that striking out the claim accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. The judgment was approved on 7 September 2026 and confirmed that the hearing scheduled for 5 November 2026 would not take place. No monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole but does not identify the underlying claim type or types. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 3 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 (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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.