Case 1806625/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Goldthorpe v SRCL Limited t/a Stericycle — 2024
- Case reference
- 1806625/2023
- Decision date
- 30 September 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Bright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Goldthorpe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim of discrimination arising from disability. At a preliminary hearing on 29 January 2024, the Tribunal ordered him to provide a disability impact statement and medical records by 25 March 2024. When that evidence was not provided, the respondent applied for a postponement and later for strike out. The Tribunal gave the claimant a further opportunity in August 2024 to explain why he had not complied and when he would be fit to attend the final hearing.
The claimant's representatives said they had been unable to contact him, believed he had been in hospital because of mental health difficulties, and sought a six-month stay. The respondent objected, noting that there was still no evidence of the medical condition, hospitalisation, or any indication of when the matter could proceed. The claimant's representatives later ceased acting because they could not obtain instructions.
At the public preliminary hearing on 30 September 2024, the claimant did not attend. The Tribunal found that there was still no concrete evidence that he had the disability alleged, that ill health had prevented compliance with the orders, or that a postponement or stay was justified. It concluded that his failure to comply with the Tribunal's orders, to respond to the directions requiring him to say when he would be fit to proceed, and to attend the hearing showed that the claim had not been actively pursued in any real sense, and it was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claim was struck out under rule 37 after repeated failures to comply with case management orders, attend the preliminary hearing, or provide medical evidence supporting the alleged disability or the explanation for non-compliance. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37
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.