Case 2200226/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Hind-Stafford v Bee World UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2200226/2023
- Decision date
- 29 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Singh JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Hind-Stafford
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningA preliminary hearing for case management was listed for 24 July 2023, but the claimant did not attend. The tribunal attempted to contact him by telephone and email, but received no reply. By letter dated 26 July 2023, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to explain the non-attendance and to confirm whether he remained actively pursuing the claim or wished to withdraw it, warning that the claim might be struck out if no response was received.
The claimant did not respond to the tribunal's letter and made no written representations or request for a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim on the basis that the claimant was not actively pursuing it. The judgment records no substantive findings on the merits of the underlying allegations and no monetary remedy.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not contain any substantive determination of the underlying allegation; the claim was struck out because the claimant did not respond after failing to attend the preliminary hearing. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not contain any substantive determination of the underlying allegation; the claim was struck out because the claimant did not respond after failing to attend the preliminary hearing. | 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.