Case 2300022/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Fullbrook v G4S Secure Solutions (UK) Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2300022/2022
- Decision date
- 11 December 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heath Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Fullbrook
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 10 November 2023. The respondent was represented by a solicitor before Employment Judge Heath at London South.
The tribunal struck out both of the claimant's claims under Rule 37(1)(a), finding that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant had been unreasonable. In the alternative, the tribunal also struck out both claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued.
No remedy was awarded. Reasons were given orally, with written reasons to be provided only if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records that both of the claimant's claims were struck out. The extracted judgment text does not set out the pleaded discrimination allegations in detail; classification reflects the source listing category. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment records that both of the claimant's claims were struck out. The extracted judgment text does not set out this claim in detail; classification reflects the source listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment records that both of the claimant's claims were struck out. The extracted judgment text does not set out this claim in detail; classification reflects the source listing category. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(a)
- 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.