Case 1805025/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Mann v Chadwick Construction Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 1805025/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Deeley Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Mann
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr T Mann’s unfair dismissal claim. An order dated 17 January 2022, sent to the parties on 20 January 2022, gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued.
The reasons recorded that the claimant had not complied with an earlier order of 28 September 2021 requiring him to explain why his unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out by 12 October 2021. He also failed to attend a preliminary hearing listed for 2.00 pm on 13 January 2022 and gave no reason for his absence.
The tribunal further noted that the claimant did not comply with the 17 January 2022 order, which asked him to explain why the claim should not be struck out and/or request a hearing on the basis that the tribunal did not appear to have jurisdiction because of issues raised by the respondent concerning ACAS early claim conciliation. The claimant made no written representations, or none that were sufficient, and the claim was therefore struck out. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim for failure to actively pursue it and for non-compliance with tribunal orders; it did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint. | 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.