Sixt Rent A Car Ltd

Case Summary

The claimant's claim against Sixt Rent A Car Ltd 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. The claimant did not respond to the Tribunal's warning letter dated 20 March 2026 offering an opportunity to explain or request a hearing.

The claim was struck out because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's Order dated 29 October 2025 and the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant failed to respond to the Tribunal's warning letter offering an opportunity to explain or request a hearing.

Use these claim-type pages to compare this decision with other published tribunal cases, outcome patterns, and visible award data.

• •Non-compliance with Tribunal Order dated 29 October 2025
• •Claim not actively pursued

EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Christopher Mckenna Respondent: Sixt Rent A Car Ltd JUDGMENT The claim is struck out. REASONS 1. The Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 20 March 2026 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 29 October 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. 5. The hearing on 20 July 2026 will not take place. Approved by: Employment Judge Arullendran Date: 11 May 2026 JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON 12 May 2026 FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE