Case 1601489/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Tuznik v Enersys UK Ltd and 2 others — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601489/2022
- Decision date
- 5 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge S Moore Date
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Mr J Tuznik
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that a preliminary hearing on 23 March 2023 was attended by neither the claimant nor sufficient information to progress the case. The claimant had previously been ordered to provide an impact statement and disclose medical records, and he was given an extension to 6 April 2023 together with a strike-out warning. He did not comply with those orders.
A further preliminary hearing took place on 17 July 2023 before Judge Brady. The claimant attended but said he was not well enough to take part and needed an interpreter, so the hearing was postponed. He was given a further extension to 31 August 2023 and was directed to file medical evidence confirming his condition or a sick note within 14 days, but he again failed to comply. By letter dated 15 September 2023 the tribunal invited representations or a request for a hearing as to why the claim should not be struck out. The claimant made no written representations and did not attend the 4 October 2023 hearing, so the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not specify the underlying pleaded causes of action; it records that the claim was struck out under rule 37 for non-compliance and failure to actively pursue the case. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.