Case 2300410/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Barrett v Abm UK — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300410/2021
- Decision date
- 4 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Barrett
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal in Mr M Barrett v Abm struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The reasons recorded were that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders and had not actively pursued the case.
The tribunal noted that, by a letter dated 14 February 2022, the claimant was given an opportunity to contact the tribunal about the upcoming hearing. It recorded that he made no written representations, or no sufficient representations, explaining why strike-out should not happen or requesting a hearing. The hearing fixed for 11 March 2022 did not take place, and the tribunal did not determine the merits of the underlying claims.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment strikes out 'the claim' under rule 37 and does not separately identify this head of claim; the discrimination category comes from the case listing. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out 'the claim' under rule 37 and does not separately identify this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of The Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.