Case 1405913/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Woodcock v Yuasa Battery Sales UK Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1405913/2020
- Decision date
- 10 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Midgley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Woodcock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 21 January 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr Woodcock an opportunity to make representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the claim had not been actively pursued and that he had not complied with the Tribunal's case management orders.
Mr Woodcock did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment does not determine the substantive merits of any discrimination or unfair dismissal complaint.
The Tribunal also recorded that the hearing listed for 5 to 8 September 2022 would not take place. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not identify this claim type expressly; it refers only to 'the claim'. The underlying discrimination category is inferred from the case listing/context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not identify this claim type expressly; it refers only to 'the claim'. The underlying unfair dismissal category is inferred from the case listing/context. | 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.