Case 2300243/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Stanley v HATS Group Limited PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300243/2022
- Decision date
- 5 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Stanley
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe matter was listed as the first day of a four-day final hearing on 13 February 2024, but the Regional Judge converted it into an open preliminary hearing to consider the Respondent's application to strike out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The Claimant did not attend. The clerk telephoned the number on the ET1 form, but the call did not connect, and the Tribunal waited until 10.10 before starting the hearing.
The Respondent said that, following the preliminary hearing on 22 June 2023, the Tribunal had made case management orders requiring the Claimant to provide a schedule of loss, disclose documents and provide a witness statement. The Respondent said it had made numerous attempts to contact the Claimant about compliance, but there had been none. It also said it sent an updated bundle, together with its witness statements in electronic and hard copy form, but the hard copy material was returned, including an envelope marked 'unwanted' and another returned because the package was not collected.
The Tribunal accepted that the Claimant had not actively pursued the claims since the last preliminary hearing and that the Respondent had heard nothing from him despite its attempts to comply with the orders. It found there had been no attempt by the Claimant to comply with the case management orders and struck out the claim on that basis. No merits findings and no remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying claim type inferred from the gov.uk case listing; the judgment itself refers only to 'the Claimant's claim' / 'claims' when striking out the case. The reasons section also contains an apparent date inconsistency, referring to orders made in 'June 2022' after identifying the relevant preliminary hearing as 22 June 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Underlying claim type inferred from the gov.uk case listing; the judgment itself refers only to 'the Claimant's claim' / 'claims' when striking out the case. The reasons section also contains an apparent date inconsistency, referring to orders made in 'June 2022' after identifying the relevant preliminary hearing as 22 June 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the gov.uk case listing; the judgment itself refers only to 'the Claimant's claim' / 'claims' when striking out the case. The reasons section also contains an apparent date inconsistency, referring to orders made in 'June 2022' after identifying the relevant preliminary hearing as 22 June 2023. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Underlying claim type inferred from the gov.uk case listing; the judgment itself refers only to 'the Claimant's claim' / 'claims' when striking out the case. The reasons section also contains an apparent date inconsistency, referring to orders made in 'June 2022' after identifying the relevant preliminary hearing as 22 June 2023. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d) ET Rules 2013
- Overriding Objective
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.