Case 1309960/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Bennett v Gristwood and Toms Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1309960/2020
- Decision date
- 18 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Choudry
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Bennett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard the respondent's application to strike out the claimant's remaining claims for breach of contract, ordinary unfair dismissal and automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. The reasons section records that earlier in the case the claimant had brought race discrimination, disability discrimination, religion or belief discrimination, redundancy pay and other payment claims; the race discrimination and redundancy pay claims were withdrawn, and the disability and religion or belief discrimination claims had already been struck out for non-compliance with an unless order.
The respondent relied on repeated failures to comply with case management orders about particulars, disclosure, witness statements and loss documents, together with delay that caused the March 2022 final hearing and the August 2023 hearing to be vacated. The tribunal noted that the claimant gave changing explanations about witness statements and disclosure, that he had not contacted the tribunal or the respondent after returning to the UK on 25 July 2023, and that the delay meant a key respondent witness was no longer employed.
The tribunal found that the claimant had shown deliberate and persistent disregard of required procedural steps, that his conduct in the proceedings was unreasonable and vexatious, and that he had misled the tribunal about an alleged email said to have been sent on 10 January 2022 and about whether he had received tribunal correspondence while in Costa Rica. It concluded that there could not be a fair trial and that, even if further directions were issued, a strike out was proportionate. The outstanding claims were therefore struck out under rule 37(1)(b) and rule 37(1)(c); the alternative deposit order application did not need to be pursued once strike out was ordered.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment identifies this outstanding claim as breach of contract. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Ordinary unfair dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
11 references- rule 37(1)(b) scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious conduct
- rule 37(1)(c) non-compliance with Tribunal rules or orders
- proportionality for strike out
- rule 39 little reasonable prospect of success
- Abegaze v Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage
- Hemdan v Ishmail
- Ahir v British Airways Plc
- Harris v Academies Enterprise Trust
- Emuemukoro v Croma Vigilant (Scotland) Ltd
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.