Case 2216589/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr William Storey v Fulham Prep School — 2024
- Case reference
- 2216589/2023
- Decision date
- 6 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Keogh
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr William Storey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike-out judgment under rule 37, not a merits decision. The Tribunal recorded that by letter dated 20 November 2024 it had given Mr Storey an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with orders dated 5 March 2024, had not actively pursued the claim, and, without the ordered information or compliance with directions, there was insufficient time for Fulham Prep School (2022) Limited properly to prepare for the final hearing listed for 16 December 2024.
The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim, and the 16 December 2024 final hearing did not take place. No remedy was awarded because the claim was struck out before any merits determination.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment is a rule 37 strike-out decision. It does not identify the underlying pleaded allegations in the extracted text; the source listing categorised the case as race discrimination. | Struck out | Race | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.