Case 2300313/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For v Panacea Applications Ltd — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300313/2019
- Decision date
- 13 June 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge HYDE
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Hyde, sitting alone on 29 May 2019, struck out the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint forthwith. The tribunal had sent a letter dated 8 March 2019 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out, with regard to section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996.
The judgment records that the claimant did not provide representations that would bring him within the tribunal’s powers to determine the unfair dismissal complaint under the Employment Rights Act 1996, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim.
The judgment also notes that the claimant’s remaining complaint of disability discrimination in relation to his dismissal was still listed for a preliminary hearing on 22 January 2020 and, if necessary, a final hearing on 11 August 2020. That discrimination claim was not determined in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint forthwith after the claimant did not provide representations or request a hearing under section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- section 108 of the Employment Rights Act 1996
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.