Adferiad/Diverse Cmyru

Case Summary

The claimant's employment claim against Adferiad/Diverse Cmyru was struck out by the tribunal. The tribunal had warned the claimant on 17 November 2025 that it was considering striking out the claim on the grounds that it had not been actively pursued, but the claimant failed to respond to the opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out.

The claim was struck out under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant had not actively pursued the claim and failed to respond to the tribunal's warning letter giving the claimant an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out.

• •Whether claim should be struck out for lack of active pursuit under Rule 38 of Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Danielle Parker Respondent: Adferiad/Diverse Cmyru JUDGMENT The claim is struck out. REASONS 1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 17 November 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 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. Approved by: Employment Judge Jenkins Date: 30 March 2026 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 30 March 2026 Miriam Drake FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE