Case 2301843/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Mitie Security Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301843/2020
- Decision date
- 17 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge K Andrews Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend a preliminary hearing on 16 November 2021, despite having been notified of it. Orders made at that hearing were sent to the claimant on 29 November 2021 and required him to provide specified information to the Tribunal and the respondent by 14 December 2021, but he did not do so.
After the respondent brought the non-compliance to the Tribunal's attention, the Tribunal wrote to the claimant on 6 January 2022 warning that strike out was being considered because he had not complied with the order and the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant was invited to give written reasons or request a hearing if he objected, but there was no further contact from him.
The Tribunal found that the claimant was not actively pursuing his claim. The claim was struck out and the hearing listed to begin on 29 August 2023 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination, but the judgment itself does not set out the pleaded causes of action and strikes out the claim as a whole. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal, but the judgment itself does not set out the pleaded causes of action and strikes out the claim as a whole. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing category identifies unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment itself does not set out the pleaded causes of action and strikes out the claim as a whole. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The gov.uk listing category identifies Working Time Regulations, but the judgment itself does not set out the pleaded causes of action and strikes out the claim as a whole. | Struck out | — | — |
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.