Case 2202186/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Madigan v The British Library — 2022
- Case reference
- 2202186/2022
- Decision date
- 21 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Madigan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 11 August 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr J Madigan an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why his complaints of unfair dismissal and disability discrimination should not be struck out. The Tribunal recorded three reasons for considering strike out: non-compliance with rule 37(1)(c) and (d), non-compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 21 July 2022, and that the claims had not been actively pursued.
Mr Madigan did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. Employment Judge Heath therefore struck out both the unfair dismissal complaint and the disability discrimination complaint. No monetary remedy was awarded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to make representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's 11 August 2022 letter. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under rule 37 after non-compliance with rule 37(1)(c) and (d), failure to comply with the Tribunal's order dated 21 July 2022, and lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(c) and (d)
- rule 37
- Order of the Tribunal dated 21 July 2022
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.