Mr S Mcdonald v XDP Logistics (Steven): 8001920/2024
JUDGMENT
The claim is struck out under rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 on the grounds that the claim has not been actively pursued in terms of rule 38(1)(d).REASONS
[1]On 10 February 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the claimant to inform him that he would be required to provide an amended ET1 claim form if he wished for the claim to be reserved on another respondent. The claimant replied to confirm that he wished to amend the claim to change the name of the respondent but did not provide an amended claim form.[2]On 18 February, the claimant was asked again to provide an amended ET1 claim form to allow the Tribunal to re-serve the claim. No reply was received. The Tribunal issued a reminder to the claimant on 27 February 2025, asking for a reply by 6 March 2025. The claimant replied to ask for clarification from the Tribunal on how to respond. The Tribunal confirmed a reply could be provided by email or through the online portal (CitizenUi). No further reply was received from the claimant.[3]The Tribunal issued a further reminder to the claimant on 18 March 2025, asking for a reply by 25 March 2025. A copy of the Tribunal’s letter of 18 February was provided for information. The claimant’s reply again did not provide an amended ET1, leaving the Tribunal unable to re-serve the claim.[4]On 27 March 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant again to explain that an amended claim form would be required for the claim to be re-served on the new respondent. The claimant was provided with a copy of the Tribunal’s letter of 10 February and asked to reply by 3 April 2025. No reply was received.[5]On 9 April 2025, the claimant was contacted by telephone by the Tribunal’s administrative staff to explain the action he was required to take. The claimant failed to provide an amended copy of the claim form following the phone call. On 24 April 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant, and he was asked again to provide an amended copy of the claim form. The claimant was warned that a failure to reply may result in a strike out warning on the basis that the claim was not actively pursued. No reply was received.[6]On 12 May 2025 the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to give written reasons by 26 May 2025 or to request a hearing in order to consider why the claim should not be struck out.[7]The claimant has failed to give an acceptable reason why such a judgment should not be made or to request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore strikes out the claim on the basis that it is no longer actively pursued.