Case 1405391/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Hobson v Wessex Eagle Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1405391/2020
- Decision date
- 29 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Hobson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by telephone on 15 June 2021. The claimant did not attend. Employment Judge Dawson recorded that the claimant had been notified of the hearing and had also been warned in earlier correspondence that the tribunal might consider strike out if case management orders were not complied with. The respondent’s name was amended to Wessex Eagle Limited.
On the unfair dismissal claim, the tribunal noted that the claim form said the claimant had been employed between 21 October 2019 and 31 October 2020 as a plant fitter, but it did not identify any basis on which an exception to the two-year qualifying period might apply. The judge concluded that the tribunal had no jurisdiction because the claimant had not been employed for two years or more before dismissal, and the unfair dismissal claim was struck out.
On the disability discrimination claim, the tribunal referred to directions requiring the claimant to identify the disability relied on, provide medical evidence, and serve an impact statement dealing with the effect of the alleged disability on day-to-day activities. The claimant sent documents on 15 February 2021 but did not include an impact statement, did not serve the material on the respondent, and did not comply with later orders and warnings from the tribunal. The judge accepted the respondent’s evidence that no impact statement had been received.
Because the claimant did not attend, had failed to comply with repeated tribunal orders without good reason, and had not progressed the issues for hearing, the judge considered that a fair hearing could not be advanced and that further tribunal resources should not be spent on the claim. Applying the overriding objective, the disability discrimination claim was struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held it appeared to have no jurisdiction because the claimant had not been employed for two years or more before dismissal; the claimant did not respond to the earlier strike-out warning and the claim was struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant did not attend the hearing and had not complied with repeated directions to serve an impact statement and supporting material on the respondent. The tribunal accepted the respondent had not received an impact statement and struck out the claim for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- overriding objective
- section 6(1) EqA 2010
- Schedule 1 EqA 2010
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.