Case 2306303/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Lamey v Sainsburys Supermarkets Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 2306303/2020
- Decision date
- 8 February 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Lamey
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure. The stated grounds were non-compliance with Tribunal orders and that the claim was not being actively pursued.
The Tribunal recorded that it had written to the claimant on 14 October 2021 ordering him to provide information about his claim and warning that the claim could be struck out. This followed an earlier warning letter sent on 16 September 2021. The claimant did not respond to either letter and did not provide the requested information, so the Tribunal struck out the claim.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. The short judgment does not set out the underlying particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. The short judgment does not set out the underlying particulars of this claim. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claim for non-compliance with Tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. The short judgment does not set out the underlying particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013/1237
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.