Case 2402321/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Hampson v Tab Refractory Construction and Maintenance Co Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 2402321/2020
- Decision date
- 8 October 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Representation
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Hampson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr L Hampson did not attend the hearing. The respondent, Tab Refractory Construction and Maintenance Co Limited, was represented by Mr J Ellison, Employment Law Advocate. Employment Judge Benson heard the matter at Liverpool on 1 October 2020.
The judgment records that all claims were struck out under Rule 37(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The reason given was that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders dated 2 June 2020, 1 July 2020, 3 August 2020 and 29 August 2020.
The tribunal also found that the claims had not been actively pursued. No substantive findings were made on the merits of the unfair dismissal or unlawful deduction from wages claims, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(c) and (d) because the claimant had not complied with the orders dated 2 June 2020, 1 July 2020, 3 August 2020 and 29 August 2020, and the claims had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal struck out all claims under Rule 37(c) and (d) because the claimant had not complied with the orders dated 2 June 2020, 1 July 2020, 3 August 2020 and 29 August 2020, and the claims had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(c) and (d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
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.