Case 1601524/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Thomas v WATL Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601524/2022
- Decision date
- 19 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sharp
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M Thomas presented the claim on 29 November 2022 as a complaint of disability discrimination. After enquiries about the correct name of the respondent, the proceedings were served on WATL Group Ltd on 17 April 2023. No ET3 response was filed.
At a case management hearing on 7 June 2023, EJ Sharp ordered the claimant to make a fully pleaded application to amend by 7 August 2023 and to provide a written statement about his impairments together with relevant medical records by the same date. Those documents were needed to determine whether the claimant was a disabled person at the relevant time. A further case management hearing was listed for 18 September 2023.
The claimant did not provide the ordered witness statement or medical records, despite reminders from the tribunal on 10 August 2023 and 22 August 2023. No further application to amend was made. On 7 September 2023 EJ Sharp issued a strike out warning under rule 37, referring to non-compliance with the case management orders and the fact that the case had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not send any objections by 14 September 2023.
When the matter came before Employment Judge R Harfield on 18 September 2023, neither the claimant nor his representative attended. The clerk telephoned the claimant's representative, who said they would not attend. The tribunal also recorded that it could not progress and determine the claim, including the claim as originally brought without amendment, without the disability documentation and information that had been ordered. The claim was therefore struck out under rule 37 for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was presented as a complaint of disability discrimination. The tribunal did not determine the merits and struck it out under rule 37 for non-compliance with case management orders and because the case had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.