Case 1400908/2021 · Employment Tribunal

Did Not Attend For the v Mr J Pearce, Solicitor — 2022

Case reference: 1400908/2021
Decision date: 18 March 2022
Jurisdiction: England & Wales

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Did Not Attend For the

Respondent

Mr J Pearce, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

On 18 March 2022, Employment Judge N J Roper dealt with Mr D Woods's claims by telephone. The judgment recorded claims for automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996, detriment for public interest disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996, discrimination because of sex and/or age, less favourable treatment under the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002, entitlement to a statutory redundancy payment under section 135 ERA 1996, and a protective award under section 189 TULR(C)A 1992.

The tribunal dismissed the redundancy payment claim because the claimant had not been employed for the required continuous period of two years under section 155 ERA 1996. It dismissed the protective award claim because the duty to consult under section 188(1) TULR(C)A 1992 was not engaged: the first respondent did not propose to dismiss 20 or more employees, and in any event there were recognised trade unions. The judgment also stated that the claims listed in paragraph 1 could only be brought against the first respondent and were dismissed as against the second and third respondents.

The fixed-term employees claim was struck out because none of the claimant's named comparators were permanent employees for Regulation 3(1) purposes. The tribunal also struck out the remaining claims, including automatically unfair dismissal, detriment for public interest disclosures, and discrimination because of sex and/or age, under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) because the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claims. No remedy was awarded.

Claims and outcomes

7 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Unfair dismissal	Automatically unfair dismissal under section 103A ERA 1996. The judgment also stated this head could only be brought against the first respondent and dismissed it as against the second and third respondents; it was then struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) for failure to comply with tribunal orders and lack of active pursuit.	Struck out	—	—
Fixed-term employee regulations	Less favourable treatment under the Fixed Term Employees (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2002. The tribunal found none of the claimant's named comparators were permanent employees for Regulation 3(1) purposes, and the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(a) and also under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d).	Struck out	—	—
Redundancy	Claim for a statutory redundancy payment under section 135 ERA 1996. The tribunal found the claimant was not employed for a continuous period of not less than two years under section 155 ERA 1996.	Dismissed	—	—
Other	Protective award claim under section 189 TULR(C)A 1992. The tribunal found the duty to consult under section 188(1) was not engaged because the first respondent did not propose to dismiss 20 or more employees, and in any event there were recognised trade unions.	Dismissed	—	—
Whistleblowing	Detriment arising from public interest disclosures under section 47B ERA 1996. Struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) because the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim.

Legal tests applied

9 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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.