Cases6001829/2024

Claimant v ZeroAvia Limited

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

The claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) because it has not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to make representations in writing or request a hearing following a case management order dated 17 March 2025 that gave the claimant an opportunity to show why the claim should not be struck out.

Facts

Dr D M Palermo brought a claim against ZeroAvia Limited, case number 6001829/2024. On 17 March 2025, the tribunal issued a case management order giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out for failure to actively pursue it. The claimant failed to respond or make any sufficient representations. A hearing had been scheduled for 24 July 2025.

Decision

Employment Judge Woodhead struck out the claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to comply with the case management order requiring representations or a hearing request, and consequently the claim was dismissed and the scheduled hearing cancelled.

Practical note

Claimants must respond to case management orders and actively pursue their claims, or face strike out under Rule 38(1)(d) regardless of the underlying merits.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure Rule 38(1)(d)

Case details

Case number
6001829/2024
Decision date
9 June 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
technology
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No