Case 1802618/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Barc v Anglo Beef Processors UK and 1 other — 2023
- Case reference
- 1802618/2023
- Decision date
- 6 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr L Barc
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the complaints of harassment related to age and harassment related to race or nationality. Those complaints were the aspects of the claim for which the Claimant had been ordered to provide further details after a Preliminary Hearing on 12 July 2023.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not provided the ordered information despite reminders, correspondence from the First Respondent's representative, and a warning that strike out was being considered. It was satisfied that strike out of those aspects was proportionate because of the Claimant's unreasonable conduct of the claim, failure to comply with Tribunal Orders, and because a fair hearing of the harassment claims was not possible without sufficient detail of the alleged harassment.
The Tribunal did not strike out the rest of the claim on the basis of the Claimant's email response to the strike out application, although it warned that continued failure to comply with Orders could risk a further strike out application.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to race or nationality, identified in section 5.1.1 of the Issues section of the case summary in the Order of 12 July 2023, was struck out. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | The complaint of harassment related to age, identified in section 4.1.1 of the Issues section of the case summary in the Order of 12 July 2023, was struck out. | Struck out | Age | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Tribunal's 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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 4 PDF on gov.uk
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.