Case 2313071/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Gheorghe v ASD Transport Limited t/a ASD Coaches — 2025
- Case reference
- 2313071/2024
- Decision date
- 24 November 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Siddall
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Gheorghe
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Gheorghe brought claims described in the judgment as unfair dismissal, race discrimination, disability discrimination, money claims, and whistleblowing. The judgment notes that he appeared to still be employed by the respondent when the unfair dismissal complaint was described.
On 26 March 2025 Judge Heath ordered the claimant to provide further details of his claims within 21 days, but he did not comply. On 6 September 2025 Judge Hart warned that the tribunal was considering strike out because the March order had not been complied with and because the claim was not being actively pursued, and directed the claimant to respond within 14 days if he objected.
No response was received. The tribunal therefore struck out the claims under rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024. The hearings listed for 17 February 2026 and 22-26 February 2027 were cancelled, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim was not being actively pursued after the claimant failed to comply with orders to provide further particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim was not being actively pursued after the claimant failed to comply with orders to provide further particulars. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim was not being actively pursued after the claimant failed to comply with orders to provide further particulars. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | Struck out under rule 38(1)(d) because the claim was not being actively pursued after the claimant failed to comply with orders to provide further particulars. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Covers the judgment's reference to unspecified money claims; these were struck out with the rest of the claim for lack of active pursuit. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 38(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.