Case 2217608/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Radulski v NG Bailey Facilities Services Limited London Central — 2024
- Case reference
- 2217608/2024
- Decision date
- 22 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkin
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Radulski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16 May 2024 the tribunal made case management orders. The claimant did not comply with those orders, and the respondent applied for the claim to be struck out. The judgment records that a letter was then sent on 27 June 2024 warning that Employment Judge Adkin was considering strike-out because the orders had not been complied with and the claim was not being actively pursued, and inviting the claimant to explain why that should not happen or to request a hearing by 3 July 2024.
No reply was received from the claimant. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37(1)(c) and/or rule 37(1)(d) on the grounds of failure to comply with tribunal orders and/or lack of active pursuit. The hearing listed to begin on 19 November 2024 did not go ahead. The judgment does not determine the merits of the pleaded disability discrimination, race discrimination, or unfair dismissal allegations.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and/or rule 37(1)(d) for failure to comply with orders and/or lack of active pursuit. It did not determine the merits of this pleaded claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and/or rule 37(1)(d) for failure to comply with orders and/or lack of active pursuit. It did not determine the merits of this pleaded claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and/or rule 37(1)(d) for failure to comply with orders and/or lack of active pursuit. It did not determine the merits of this pleaded claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(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.