Case 1806978/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Whitwell v Allerton Damp Proofing Knottingley Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 1806978/2019
- Decision date
- 15 April 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shepherd Appearances
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Whitwell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Whitwell brought a claim for outstanding wages, saying he was employed by Allerton Damp Proofing Knottingley Ltd as a freelance operative from 17 September 2019 to 27 October 2019 and was owed two weeks' pay and one day at double time. The respondent denied that he was an employee or worker and sought disclosure of documents relevant to that status, including CIS records and tax returns.
Employment Judge Jones ordered disclosure of the requested documents on 19 February 2020. The claimant first said he was not registered with CIS, then later accepted that he was registered, but did not provide the ordered CIS records or full tax returns. The Tribunal gave further directions and warnings, including that compliance was not optional and that strike out would be considered if the documents were not provided.
The claimant still did not disclose the documents and, by the time the application was determined on the papers, he had provided no adequate explanation for the non-compliance. Employment Judge Shepherd found that the documents were relevant to the issue before the Tribunal, that the claimant had been given a reasonable time to comply, and that he had repeatedly failed to do so. The claim was therefore struck out under rule 37 as proportionate and in accordance with the overriding objective.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The claim was presented as a claim for outstanding wages, including two weeks' pay and one day at double time. It was struck out under rule 37 for failure to comply with Tribunal disclosure orders, rather than determined on the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 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.