Case 1601660/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Custy v Qioptiq Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601660/2022
- Decision date
- 3 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Harfield’s
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Custy
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy judgment dated 31 July 2023, sent to the parties on 3 August 2023, Employment Judge C Sharp struck out the complaint of disability discrimination in Mr J Custy’s case against Qioptiq Limited. The Tribunal had previously written on 13 June 2023 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations, or request a hearing, as to why the complaint should not be struck out for non-compliance with the order of 7 March 2023. The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the disability discrimination complaint because of failure to comply with Employment Judge Harfield’s directions of 7 March 2023 to provide a disability impact statement. The Tribunal expressly declined to strike out the complaint for failure to pursue. The judgment does not determine the merits of the disability discrimination complaint.
The judgment also states that the claimant’s remaining claim remained listed for a preliminary hearing on 9 August 2023. No remedy was awarded in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations in response to the Tribunal's letter dated 13 June 2023. The Tribunal said the complaint was struck out for failure to comply with Employment Judge Harfield's directions of 7 March 2023 requiring a disability impact statement. The Tribunal declined to strike out for failure to pursue. | 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.