Case 1805861/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P King v Mitie Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 1805861/2020
- Decision date
- 28 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Buckley’s
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P King
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim after the Respondent applied on 10 June 2021 on the basis that the Claimant had not complied with Employment Judge Buckley's case management orders to disclose documents.
Employment Judge Bright warned the Claimant that his claim might be struck out for non-compliance and ordered him to write to the Tribunal by 25 June 2021 explaining why that should not happen or asking for a hearing. The judgment records that the Claimant's only response contained no substantive explanation for non-compliance and no argument against strike out.
The Tribunal found that the Claimant had not complied with its orders and appeared to have no intention of doing so. It concluded that striking out the claim was consistent with the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claim was struck out. The breach of contract classification comes from the gov.uk listing category; the one-page judgment itself does not set out the pleaded causes of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the claim was struck out. The disability discrimination classification comes from the gov.uk listing category; the one-page judgment itself does not set out the pleaded causes of action. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- overriding objective
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.