Cases8000242/2025

Claimant v Teplac Holdings Ltd

17 April 2025Before Employment Judge N HosieScotlandon papers

Outcome

Claimant fails

Individual claims

Otherstruck out

Struck out for non-pursuit under rule 38(1)(d). The claimant failed to respond to three tribunal letters (5 March 2025, 21 March 2025, and strike-out warning on 1 April 2025) and did not provide reasons why the claim should not be struck out.

Facts

The claimant, Mr C Weatherly, brought a claim against Teplac Holdings Ltd. The tribunal sent three letters requesting further information: on 5 March 2025, 21 March 2025, and a strike-out warning on 1 April 2025 with a deadline of 15 April 2025. The claimant failed to respond to any of these letters or to request a hearing.

Decision

The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 38(1)(d) on the grounds that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant's failure to respond to repeated tribunal correspondence and the strike-out warning demonstrated a failure to pursue the claim.

Practical note

Claimants must respond promptly to tribunal correspondence or risk having their claims struck out for non-pursuit, even without a hearing.

Legal authorities cited

Statutes

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

Case details

Case number
8000242/2025
Decision date
17 April 2025
Hearing type
strike out
Hearing days
Classification
procedural

Respondent

Sector
other
Represented
No

Claimant representation

Represented
No