Case 2203439/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Harris v Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203439/2020
- Decision date
- 26 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Grewal Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Harris
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a disability discrimination claim about the respondent's failure to appoint him to a role after a formal offer. At a preliminary hearing, orders were made requiring the claimant to provide particulars of the Equality Act 2010 sections and facts relied on, and to serve medical records and a witness statement about disability.
The tribunal found that the claimant did not comply with those orders, did not respond to the respondent's communications or strike-out application, and had made no contact with the respondent or the tribunal after the preliminary hearing on 5 November 2020. The claimant was given a reasonable opportunity to make representations on the strike-out application but made none.
The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and that his conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable. It concluded that the case could not proceed further and struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant complained of disability discrimination concerning the respondent's failure to appoint him to a role after a formal offer. The claim was struck out under Rule 37 because the tribunal found it was not being actively pursued and that the claimant's conduct of the proceedings had been unreasonable; the underlying discrimination complaint was not adjudicated on its merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals 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.