Case 2400527/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Solanki v North West Ambulance Service NHS Trust — 2022
- Case reference
- 2400527/2022
- Decision date
- 3 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shotter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Solanki
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 15 February 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr D Solanki an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on whether the claim should be struck out on the grounds that it was scandalous or vexatious, had no reasonable prospect of success, had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 15 February 2022, had not been actively pursued, or could no longer receive a fair hearing because the respondent did not know the case it had to meet.
Mr Solanki did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment was issued by Employment Judge Shotter on 29 March 2022 and sent to the parties on 3 May 2022.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment does not determine the merits of the claim. By letter dated 15 February 2022, the Tribunal raised strike-out grounds including scandalous or vexatious conduct, no reasonable prospect of success, non-compliance with an order, lack of active pursuit, and inability to have a fair hearing. The claimant did not make written representations, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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.