Case 1600364/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Wyatt-Jones v J D Wetherspoon plc — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600364/2023
- Decision date
- 10 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Wyatt-Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment states that the claim was struck out. In the reasons, the tribunal records that by letter dated 7 August it gave the respondent an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why strike out should not occur, referring to non-compliance with an order dated 6 June 2023 and that the matter had not been actively pursued.
The judgment then states that no written representations, or no sufficient representations, were made and no hearing was requested. It therefore records that strike out followed and that the hearing listed for 12, 13 and 14 December 2023 would not take place.
The text contains an inconsistency between references to the claim being struck out and the response being struck out. The disposal has been recorded on the basis of the judgment’s express statement that the claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment heading states 'The claim is struck out'. The reasons contain inconsistent references to the 'response' being struck out, but the overall disposal appears to be strike out of the proceedings. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment heading states 'The claim is struck out'. The reasons contain inconsistent references to the 'response' being struck out, but the overall disposal appears to be strike out of the proceedings. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.