Mr D Power v QStory Ltd: 6023223/2024
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out.REASONS
[1]By a letter dated 28 April 2025 Employment Judge Brown gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, as to why the claim should not be struck out because• The claimant had not complied with the Order of EJ Bunting dated 12 March 2024 at paragraph 14: "In relation to each allegation in para 5 of that document the claimant must, by 04 April 2025, set out whether (and if so where) that allegation features in the ET1 of 26 December 2025, as well as whether (and if so where) it features in the letter to EJ Keogh dated 26 December 2024."• His claim was not being actively pursued.[2]The Tribunal gave the claimant 12 days until 12 May 2025 to respond. The claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 28 April 2025, simply saying he was waiting for the outcome of a complaint he had made about the Tribunal and that he was appealing the proposal to strike out. He gave no details and no reasons as to why the claim should not be struck out. He did not say that he would comply with EJ Bunting’s order.[3]On 13 May 2025, the respondent wrote further to the Tribunal, saying that the order of EJ Bunting had also required the claimant to provide to the respondent (under para 21) details of the alleged disability of depression and (under para 22) relevant medical records in relation to the same by 02 May 2025, but that the claimant had not done so. The claimant wrote to the Tribunal on 19 May 2025, again simply saying he was waiting for the outcome of a complaint he had made about the Tribunal and that he was appealing the proposal to strike out. He gave Case No: 6023223/2024 no details and no reasons as to why the claim should not be struck out. He did not say that he would comply with EJ Bunting’s order.[4]The claimant is in breach of the Tribunal’s orders and has shown no intention of complying with them. He is not actively pursuing his claim. He has given no satisfactory reason as to why his claim should not be struck out.[5]The claim is therefore struck out.