Case 1303102/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Young v West Midlands Travel Ltd, National Express — 2025
- Case reference
- 1303102/2024
- Decision date
- 14 January 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Young
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr M Young's claim. In a letter dated 1 August 2024, it had invited him to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 31 May 2024, did not attend the 1 August 2024 hearing, gave no reasons for non-attendance, had not contacted the Tribunal or the Respondent's representative, and had not actively pursued the claim.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Wedderspoon struck out the claim on 14 January 2025. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits of any underlying discrimination or unfair dismissal complaint.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not separate outcomes by cause of action; it strikes out the claim as a whole after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's order, did not attend the 1 August 2024 hearing, did not provide reasons, did not contact the Tribunal or the Respondent's representative, and did not pursue the claim actively. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate outcomes by cause of action; it strikes out the claim as a whole after the claimant failed to comply with the Tribunal's order, did not attend the 1 August 2024 hearing, did not provide reasons, did not contact the Tribunal or the Respondent's representative, and did not pursue the claim actively. | Struck out | — | — |
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.