Case 2301954/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Townsend v Biffa Municipal Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2301954/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Burge Appearances
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Townsend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 29 March 2022 before Employment Judge L Burge, the claimant did not attend. The tribunal had previously notified the parties that the hearing would decide whether the claim should be struck out or whether a deposit order should be made, and it had warned on 2 March 2022 that the case did not appear to be being actively pursued.
The respondent filed a bundle and a draft list of issues on 28 March 2022. The tribunal tried to telephone the claimant several times at the start of the hearing, but there was no answer and he did not attend. The judgment records that the claimant had received notice that strike-out was under consideration and therefore had a reasonable opportunity to make representations.
The tribunal struck out the claim pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant was not actively pursuing his claims. The hearing listed for 11 and 12 August 2022 was vacated and did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying substantive cause or causes of action. It records only that the claimant's claim was struck out at a preliminary hearing under Rule 38 because the claims were not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 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.