Case 1800181/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Perry v Excel Parking Services Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 1800181/2019
- Decision date
- 11 March 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Perry
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 25 February 2019, the tribunal gave Mr D Perry an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why his unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out. The stated basis for possible strike out was that he did not have the requisite two years' service and the claim was therefore misconceived.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge JM Wade struck out the complaint of unfair dismissal on 11 March 2019 under rule 37. The judgment records that the claimant's remaining claim(s) stayed listed for hearing on 15 May 2019, but those claims were not determined in this decision.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint under rule 37. The judgment says the claimant had been given an opportunity by letter dated 25 February 2019 to make representations or request a hearing, but he did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The reasons given were that the claimant did not have the requisite two years' service and the claim was therefore misconceived. | 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.