Case 1305291/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Dumitru v Unique Mark Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305291/2021
- Decision date
- 9 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Power
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Dumitru
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a letter dated 28 April 2022 giving Mr Dumitru an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 4 February 2022. The claimant did not respond to that letter and did not make any representations.
The hearing was listed for 10.00 on 9 March 2022 as recorded in the reasons. The claimant did not attend. The judge delayed the start to allow the clerk to try to contact him, including by email reminder and two telephone calls, but there was no response and the hearing proceeded at 10.15.
The respondent attended and confirmed that no schedule of loss or witness statement had been received from the claimant in compliance with the Tribunal order. The tribunal concluded that it was appropriate to strike out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the order and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The judgment states that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying cause(s) of action; it refers only to 'the claim'. The claim was struck out for failure to comply with the Tribunal's order and for not having been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.