Case 2304284/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Jackson v Study Group Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2304284/2018
- Decision date
- 4 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wright
- Venue
- Croydon
- Panel members
- Mr M Cann, Mr S Sheath
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Croydon hearing on 4 October 2021, the claimant did not attend and did not provide written representations. The tribunal treated his email of the same date as a further application to postpone the hearing, but refused that application.
The respondent’s application that the claim be struck out was successful. The judgment does not set out separate findings on the underlying merits of the individual claims, but the case listing categories identify unfair dismissal and disability discrimination as the subject matter of the proceedings, and the tribunal therefore records the respondent’s strike-out application as disposing of the claim.
The respondent also succeeded on its costs application. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent costs of £3,525. The judgment states that oral reasons were given, and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with Rule 62(3).
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The respondent’s application that the claim be struck out was successful. The underlying unfair dismissal claim is inferred from the case listing categories. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The respondent’s application that the claim be struck out was successful. The disability discrimination claim is inferred from the case listing categories; the judgment text itself does not separate the underlying causes of action. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £3,525
- across all upheld claims
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.