Case 1400779/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Dewey v G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1400779/2021
- Decision date
- 23 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bax
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Dewey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr D Dewey's claim against G4S Cash Solutions (UK) Ltd. The reasons state that, by a letter dated 11 April 2024, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with a Tribunal order and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The judgment records that the claim had been presented in 2021 and that the claimant had still failed to comply with obligations relating to disclosure or exchange of witness statements. Employment Judge Bax had previously considered strike-out overly draconian and allowed an extension for exchange of witness statements until 8 April 2024 because the case was listed for a two-day hearing commencing 24 April 2024.
After the claimant still did not comply, the respondent renewed its strike-out request on 8 April 2024. The claimant responded on 14 April 2024 saying that an out of court settlement was in progress, but the judgment states that he gave no indication when directions would be complied with and did not request a hearing. The respondent later said settlement negotiations were not in progress, and the Tribunal found that directions still had not been complied with.
The Tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to make sufficient written representations as to why the claim should not be struck out. No monetary remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment records that 'the claim' was struck out and does not describe the substantive cause of action in the body of the reasons; classification follows the gov.uk listing category of Unfair Dismissal. | 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.