Case 1803638/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Patsaros v Bell Decorating Group Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803638/2021
- Decision date
- 15 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Davies
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Patsaros
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16 December, the claimant’s representative asked for outstanding annual leave to be paid to the claimant and for the matter to be closed. The tribunal received confirmation from the respondent that payment had been made, but the claims had not been formally withdrawn. The tribunal therefore wrote to the claimant by letter dated 25 January 2022 and gave him an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing as to why the claims should not be struck out because they were not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not reply and did not request a hearing. In the absence of any response, the tribunal struck out the claims. The hearing fixed for 16 to 18 March 2022 was vacated and would not take place. This was a procedural decision and no merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims in the text; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal struck the claims out because they were not being actively pursued after the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's 25 January 2022 letter. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims in the text; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal struck the claims out because they were not being actively pursued after the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's 25 January 2022 letter. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not enumerate the pleaded claims in the text; this claim type is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal struck the claims out because they were not being actively pursued after the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's 25 January 2022 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
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.