Case 2207695/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M McGrath v Clearway Support Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2207695/2020
- Decision date
- 16 November 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Norris Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M McGrath
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr M McGrath presented ET1 claims on 17 December 2020 alleging race discrimination, wrongful dismissal, holiday pay and failure to pay wages after about seven months' employment, ending with his resignation on 25 September 2020. The Tribunal noted that the ET1 gave very limited particulars, with no dates or names sufficient to identify the alleged events.
A Preliminary Hearing (Case Management) was listed for 2 August 2021. The Claimant did not attend and had not engaged with the respondent's draft agenda or list of issues. The Tribunal sent a strike out warning on 6 August 2021 and ordered him to provide further details of the claim and explain his non-attendance by 16 August 2021. He did not reply.
After the Respondent applied for strike out, the Claimant said the Tribunal's emails had gone into spam and later said he was out of the country. The Tribunal extended time first to 6 September 2021 and then exceptionally to 14 September 2021, and also ordered him to provide evidence of when he left the UK, his return flight and copies of emails he said he had sent. He still did not provide the required particulars or explanation. The only document he sent was a hotel summary voucher showing a Cyprus holiday arriving on 27 August and departing on 6 September 2021, which did not support his earlier statement that he would be out of the country until 8 September.
On 10 November 2021 the Respondent applied for strike out under Rule 37(1)(c). The Claimant did not respond. The Tribunal concluded that the claim should be struck out because he had failed to comply with the Tribunal's orders, referring to Rule 39(1)(c) in its reasoning. No substantive findings on the underlying claims were made and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Claim struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with Tribunal orders; no merits determination was made. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(c)
- Rule 39(1)(c)
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.