Case 1311135/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Doherty v Walkers Chocolates Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1311135/2020
- Decision date
- 10 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge V Jones Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Doherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was heard by video at Birmingham before Employment Judge V Jones on 9 September 2021. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr D Doherty, was represented in person and the respondent, Walkers Chocolates Ltd, was represented by a solicitor-advocate.
The claimant's holiday pay claim was dismissed because he confirmed that he had received all sums due from the respondent. The claim that the respondent had failed to pay his full entitlement to a redundancy payment was also dismissed on the same basis, namely that he confirmed he had received all sums due.
The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (d) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The tribunal stated that this was because the manner in which the claimant had conducted the proceedings had been unreasonable, he had failed to comply with a tribunal order, and the claim had not been actively pursued. No monetary award is recorded in the judgment.
The written record notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the sending of the decision.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holiday pay | Dismissed after the claimant confirmed he had received all sums due from the respondent. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Redundancy | Dismissed after the claimant confirmed he had received all sums due from the respondent in relation to his redundancy payment entitlement. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant's conduct of the proceedings was unreasonable, he had failed to comply with a tribunal order, and the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(b), (c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.