Case 2200754/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Pawel Waltos v Veolia ES (UK) Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2200754/2019
- Decision date
- 4 June 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Pawel Waltos
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered the matter at a preliminary hearing by telephone on 27 March 2020, which the claimant did not attend. A previous preliminary hearing had taken place on 30 August 2019, when directions were made for a Schedule of Loss and mutual disclosure.
The respondent applied for strike out by letter dated 28 November 2019, relying on the claimant's non-compliance with directions and lack of response to further communications. At the March 2020 hearing, the respondent's representative confirmed that no communications had been received from the claimant since the previous hearing and that a later direction for exchange of witness statements had also been ignored.
The tribunal held that Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure applied because the claim had not complied with tribunal orders and had not been actively pursued. The claim was struck out.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the claim under Rule 37(1). It does not set out the substantive allegations; classification follows the listed tribunal category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment strikes out the claim under Rule 37(1). It does not set out the substantive allegations; classification follows the listed Public Interest Disclosure category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.