Case 2207352/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Vadgama v BT Group plc — 2020
- Case reference
- 2207352/2017
- Decision date
- 23 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Roper Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Vadgama
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 17 June 2020 to explain why the claim should not be struck out for not having been actively pursued, or to request a hearing.
The judgment records that the claimant did not provide written representations, or did not provide sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
6 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The strike-out judgment states only that 'the claim' was struck out. This claim classification is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context rather than specified in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Age discrimination | The strike-out judgment does not identify individual causes of action. This claim classification is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The strike-out judgment does not identify individual causes of action. This claim classification is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The strike-out judgment does not identify individual causes of action. This claim classification is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The strike-out judgment does not identify individual causes of action. This claim classification is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The strike-out judgment does not identify individual causes of action. This claim classification is taken from the gov.uk listing categories in the case context. |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.