Case 2302201/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Pralesh Vadgama v John Lewis plc — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302201/2023
- Decision date
- 1 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rice-Birchall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Pralesh Vadgama
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing listed for 15 April 2024 by CVP and had not applied for a postponement. The Tribunal attempted to contact the claimant by telephone and email at the outset of the hearing but received no response.
The Tribunal noted that the claimant had not responded to the respondent's request for further information and had not completed an agenda before the preliminary hearing. After being given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, the claimant relied on an email stating that he was away and unavailable for the online meeting.
The Tribunal found those representations insufficient. The claim was struck out because the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing when no postponement had been granted, and further or alternatively because the claim had not been actively pursued. The listed February 2025 hearing was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim but does not describe the substantive allegations; disability discrimination classification is taken from the supplied gov.uk listing category rather than the judgment text itself. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- 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.