Cases8000303/2025

Claimant v Mavi Steakhouse

1 July 2025Before Employment Judge A KempScotlandon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Claim struck out under rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit. Claimant failed to respond to tribunal letters dated 20 February 2025, 14 March 2025, 03 April 2025, and strike-out warning letter dated 01 May 2025.

Facts

Miss Fordham brought a claim against Mavi Steakhouse. The tribunal wrote to her on 20 February 2025 requesting further information. She failed to respond to multiple letters including reminders on 14 March 2025 and 03 April 2025. A strike-out warning was issued on 01 May 2025 giving until 15 May 2025 to respond. The claimant did not respond to any correspondence or request a hearing.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) on the grounds that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to engage with the tribunal process despite multiple attempts at communication and warnings.

Practical note

Claimants must actively engage with tribunal correspondence and requests for information or risk having their claims struck out for non-pursuit, even after multiple warnings.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1 rule 38Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 Schedule 1 rule 38(1)(d)

Case details

Case number
8000303/2025
Decision date
1 July 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
hospitality
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No