Case 8001784/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Number: 8001784/2024 L Barnard v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 8001784/2024
- Decision date
- 7 April 2025
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Macleod Case
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Number: 8001784/2024 L Barnard
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the ground that it had not been actively pursued, specifically under rule 38(1)(d).
The Tribunal had given the claimant until 3 April 2025 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing. The claimant did not provide an acceptable reason or request a hearing.
The Tribunal also noted that the claimant's previous solicitors had been unable to obtain instructions from him, had written to the Tribunal about that in February 2025, and had withdrawn from acting on 6 March 2025 after being unable to obtain a response. The Tribunal concluded that the claimant was no longer engaging with the claim and struck it out on that basis.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not set out the pleaded causes of action, but the gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal. The claim was struck out under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not set out the pleaded causes of action, but the gov.uk listing category identifies public interest disclosure. The claim was struck out under rule 38 because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- rule 38(1)(d)
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.