Case 1400012/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Coxswain v Otium Services & Facilities Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1400012/2022
- Decision date
- 16 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Matthews Representation
- Venue
- Bristol
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Coxswain
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Coxswain’s complaint of unfair dismissal under section 94 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was struck out. The tribunal had written to him on 26 January 2022 warning that he did not appear to have the two years’ service required by section 108 ERA 1996, and gave him until 2 February 2022 to explain why the claim should not be struck out. No such reasons were provided.
The claimant did not attend or arrange representation at the telephone case management preliminary hearing listed for 13 September 2022. The Employment Judge telephoned him; he said he had not received the notice of hearing and, when invited to join, said he could not speak to the judge that day and asked for the hearing to be relisted.
The judge ordered Mr Coxswain to send the Bristol tribunal office, with a copy to the respondent, a written explanation for his non-attendance confirming whether he wished to pursue his claims. The order recorded that if no communication was received by 31 October 2022, or if he confirmed that he did not wish to pursue the case, the remaining claims for pay and discrimination because of race or religion or belief would stand dismissed without further order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment first states that the unfair dismissal complaint is dismissed, but the operative disposal is that it is 'accordingly struck out' because the claimant did not appear to have the two years' service required by section 108 ERA 1996 and did not provide reasons after the warning letter. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 94 ERA 1996
- section 108 ERA 1996
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.