Case 2200338/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Bhatia v Methods Business and Digital Technology Limited Tribunal: London Central Date: 12 July 2021 — 2021
- Case reference
- 2200338/2021
- Decision date
- 12 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Bhatia
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded that the claimant had been warned that it was considering striking out the unfair dismissal complaint because the dates of employment given in the claim form, 29 October 2018 to 14 October 2020, meant he did not appear to have the two years' service needed to bring such a claim. The judgment also noted that the tribunal was considering striking out the whole claim because the claimant had failed to attend two preliminary hearings and it appeared that the case was not being actively pursued.
The claimant did not respond to the notice to show cause by 8 June 2021. The Employment Judge therefore struck out all of the claims under Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 on the basis that they were not being actively pursued. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment expressly referred to unfair dismissal when warning that the dates of employment given in the claim form appeared to show insufficient service for such a claim. It then struck out all claims without identifying any further claim types in the extracted text. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.