Case 2207470/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Van Eeden v Marks and Spencer plc — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207470/2020
- Decision date
- 21 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Palca JUDGMENT
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Van Eeden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend a case management hearing on 7 June 2021. At that hearing, the tribunal ordered him to confirm in writing by 18 June 2021 whether he intended to pursue the proceedings, copying the respondent.
The claimant did not comply with that order. On 29 June 2021, he was ordered to provide written representations by 5pm on 6 July 2021 explaining why his claim should not be struck out, but no response was received.
The respondent applied for the claim to be struck out. The tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders and had failed actively to engage in the proceedings, apparently since they were commenced, and dismissed all claims under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses all claims pursuant to Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue the proceedings. The specific claim type is taken from the supplied case context/listing categories rather than itemised separately in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses all claims pursuant to Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue the proceedings. The specific discrimination claim type is taken from the supplied case context/listing categories rather than itemised separately in the judgment text. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) and (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.