Case 2204981/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Panesar v London North Eastern Railway Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2204981/2023
- Decision date
- 21 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Green
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Panesar
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr P Panesar's claim against London North Eastern Railway Limited under Rules 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The judgment records that the strike out was for non-compliance with an Order of the Tribunal and/or because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The reasons state that the Claimant failed, without explanation, to attend a case management hearing on 5 December 2023. Employment Judge Green then issued a strike out warning letter requiring the Claimant to tell the Tribunal by 19 December 2023 whether he intended to pursue the claim. The Claimant did not respond, and the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with an Order of the Tribunal.
The tribunal also found that since the ET1 was presented on 8 April 2023 the Claimant had not actively pursued the claim and had not responded to correspondence. In the alternative, the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued. No remedy was awarded or addressed in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and/or Rule 37(1)(d), but the extracted judgment text does not identify the underlying cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
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.