Case 6043726/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Miller v Calendula Services Limited trading as DWP Housing Partnership — 2026
- Case reference
- 6043726/2025
- Decision date
- 29 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Miller
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr A Miller's claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not identify the underlying cause of action. The Tribunal had written to Mr Miller on 16 June 2026 warning that it was considering strike-out and inviting him to explain why the claim should continue or request a hearing, but he did not reply.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the Rule 38 grounds applied and that strike-out accorded with the overriding objective in Rule 3. It noted that the claim was listed for a final hearing on 10 July 2026 and that respondent correspondence, to which Mr Miller had not replied, indicated that he had failed to comply with case management orders. The hearing was cancelled, and no monetary remedy was awarded or addressed.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment refers only to "the claim" and does not identify its underlying cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.