DAPV Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's claim against DAPV Limited was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with a previous Order and had not actively pursued the claim, and the claimant did not respond to a warning letter or request a hearing.

The claim was struck out because the claimant failed to comply with an Order of the Tribunal dated 26 February 2025 and had not actively pursued the claim. The claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter or request a hearing to explain non-compliance.

• •non-compliance with Tribunal Order dated 26 February 2025
• •failure to actively pursue claim

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant:Mr T Philpotts Respondent:DAPV Limited JUDGMENT The claim is struck out. REASONS 1.The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 4 July 2025 warning them that the Tribunal was considering striking out the claim. This was because it appeared to the Tribunal, applying Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024, that the claimant had not complied with the Order of the Tribunal dated 26 February 2025  the claim had not been actively pursued. 2.The letter gave the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing at which to do so. The claimant has not replied. 3.I am satisfied that the grounds for striking out the claim under Rule 38 apply, and that it would be in accordance with the overriding objective in Rule 3 to strike out the claim. 4.The claim is therefore struck out. Employment Judge Maxwell 15 May 2026