Case 2401168/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Hampson v Protect My Property Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2401168/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Batten
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Hampson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 30 November 2020, the Tribunal gave Mr G Hampson an opportunity to make written representations, or to request a hearing, on why the claim should not be struck out because it appeared to the Tribunal that the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment records that he failed to make representations in writing, failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
On that basis, Employment Judge Batten struck out the claim. The judgment does not record any findings on the substantive merits of the underlying age discrimination, disability discrimination, or unfair dismissal complaints, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not determine the merits of the age discrimination complaint; the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not determine the merits of the disability discrimination complaint; the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal complaint; the claim was struck out because it had not been actively pursued. | 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.