Case 2208581/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Petite v London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham — 2023
- Case reference
- 2208581/2022
- Decision date
- 20 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Petite
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe judgment concerned duplicate claims for unfair dismissal and race discrimination issued under case numbers 2208581/2022 and 2208560/2022. The Tribunal recorded that the same claims continued under case number 2208540/2022.
The Tribunal had asked the claimant to confirm by 3 January 2023 that two duplicate claims could be withdrawn. As the claims were in all material respects identical, and the claimant had not indicated objection or consent as requested, the Tribunal struck out the duplicate claims.
The stated basis for strike out was that the duplicate claims were not being actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d) and/or non-compliance with the Tribunal's order under Rule 37(1)(c). The judgment noted that the claimant could apply for reconsideration if he had grounds to argue that the strike out was prejudicial to him.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out as a duplicate of the claim continuing under case number 2208540/2022, not adjudicated on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claim was struck out as a duplicate of the claim continuing under case number 2208540/2022, not adjudicated on its merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.