Case 1402825/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr H Cuthbertson v Teleperformance limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402825/2021
- Decision date
- 14 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Self Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr H Cuthbertson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed for a telephone case management preliminary hearing to check compliance with earlier directions. Neither party attended, despite having notice of the hearing.
The tribunal recorded that nothing had been heard from the claimant since the previous hearing and that he had failed to comply with directions, including by not providing a disability impact statement or medical evidence relevant to disability status. Following the claimant's failure to comply with the unless order issued by EJ Livesey, all disability discrimination claims were dismissed.
The tribunal made a further unless order requiring the claimant to confirm by 4 pm on 22 July 2022 whether he still wished to pursue the remaining claims of unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions, wrongful dismissal and unpaid holiday pay, failing which those claims would be struck out. The judgment did not determine those remaining claims or award any remedy.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | All claims of disability discrimination were dismissed pursuant to the unless order issued on 16 June 2022 after the claimant failed to comply. The reasons also refer to the disability claim having been struck out under Rule 38(1). | Dismissed | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1) of the Employment Tribunal (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.