Case 1406432/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Dinu v Amey Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1406432/2020
- Decision date
- 27 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cadney Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Dinu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal had made an unless order dated 10 December 2021 after the claimant failed to attend a case management hearing on 9 December 2021. The order required the claimant by 14 January 2022 to say whether he intended to pursue the claim and explain his failure to attend, and if pursuing it, to address insufficient service for unfair dismissal and provide particulars of the age discrimination, race discrimination, and arrears of pay or other payment claims.
The claimant emailed on 16 December 2021 saying that he had waited for a phone call on 9 December 2021 but had not been called. Employment Judge Cadney treated this as implicitly indicating that the claimant wished to pursue the claim, but found that he had not complied with the other directions. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal referred to earlier directions asking the claimant to comment on insufficient service to bring an unfair dismissal claim; the claim was struck out after non-compliance with the unless order. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The Tribunal directed the claimant to supply full particulars of the age discrimination claim; the claim was struck out after non-compliance with the unless order. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Race discrimination | The Tribunal directed the claimant to supply full particulars of the race discrimination claim; the claim was struck out after non-compliance with the unless order. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The Tribunal referred to directions requiring particulars of arrears of pay and/or other payments; the claim was struck out after non-compliance with the unless order. | 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.