Case 2302650/2017 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Martin v Abellio London Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302650/2017
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baron's Order
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Martin
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal granted the respondent's application to strike out the claim under Rule 37(d) on the basis that it had not been actively pursued.
The reasons record repeated requests and orders for the claimant to provide the grounds of complaint. After a preliminary hearing on 9 November 2018, the claimant was ordered to provide the grounds by 30 November 2018, but the original grounds dated 6 May 2016 were only provided on 7 January 2019, with no further explanation.
The Tribunal noted that the claim had first been presented on 6 May 2016 and that no further enquiry had been made as to the status of the claim. It was satisfied that the claim had not been actively pursued and struck it out as a result.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 37(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 37(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not determine the merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under Rule 37(d) because it had not been actively pursued; it did not determine the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(d)
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.