Case 1800592/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Simpson v Powerteam Electrical Services (UK) Ltd T/a Omexom — 2021
- Case reference
- 1800592/2021
- Decision date
- 10 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Simpson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the complaint of disability discrimination. It recorded that a preliminary hearing on 26 July 2021 had resulted in an order requiring the claimant to pay a deposit of £900, and that the order was sent to him on 3 August 2021.
The claimant then wrote on 7 August 2021 stating that he would not be paying the deposit. The tribunal treated that letter as an unequivocal statement that he did not pursue the disability discrimination claim, and struck it out under rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment states that the remaining claims of unfair dismissal and victimisation would proceed to a hearing on 13 and 14 December 2021. No remedy award was made in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant was ordered to pay a deposit of £900 after a preliminary hearing on 26 July 2021. He wrote on 7 August 2021 saying he would not pay the deposit, which the tribunal treated as an unequivocal statement that he did not pursue the claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.