Case 2203459/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Did not appear and was not represented For the v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2203459/2020
- Decision date
- 25 June 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A James Representation
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not appear and was not represented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not appear and was not represented at the hearing on 25 June 2021. The tribunal recorded that he had previously failed to participate in the preliminary hearing on 4 May 2021 and had not complied with the order requiring further information by 24 May 2021. It found that his behaviour was intentional, showed disrespect for the tribunal and its procedures, and that he had given no explanation for it.
On that basis, Employment Judge A James struck out all of the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because they were not being actively pursued. The hearing listed for 14, 15, 18, 19 and 20 October 2021 was vacated. The judgment does not determine liability on the underlying discrimination or victimisation allegations and records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The written judgment strikes out all of the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because they were not being actively pursued. The substantive particulars of this complaint are not set out in the judgment. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The written judgment strikes out all of the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because they were not being actively pursued. The substantive particulars of this complaint are not set out in the judgment. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Victimisation | The written judgment strikes out all of the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because they were not being actively pursued. The substantive particulars of this complaint are not set out in the judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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.