Case 2404783/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Andrews v Go North West Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2404783/2022
- Decision date
- 17 November 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Phil Allen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Andrews
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a hearing on 15 November 2022 in Manchester by CVP, Employment Judge K M Ross sitting alone struck out Mr J Andrews's claim against Go North West Limited. The Tribunal did so under rule 37(1)(c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, relying on Mr Andrews's failure to comply with the case management orders made by Employment Judge Phil Allen at a hearing he did not attend on 26 August 2022; those orders were sent on 31 August 2022.
The Tribunal also found that the claim had not been actively pursued. Mr Andrews did not attend the 26 August 2022 case management hearing, did not explain his non-attendance when ordered to do so, and did not attend the 15 November 2022 hearing without explanation. The judgment records that the hearing listed for 22, 23 and 24 February 2023 before an Employment Judge sitting with two non-legal members at Manchester Employment Tribunal was cancelled and would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out as part of the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and (d); the judgment did not distinguish this head separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out as part of the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and (d); the judgment did not distinguish this head separately. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out as part of the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and (d); the judgment did not distinguish this head separately. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out as part of the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and (d); the judgment did not distinguish this head separately. | Struck out | — | — |
| Victimisation | Struck out as part of the claim as a whole under rule 37(1)(c) and (d); the judgment did not distinguish this head separately. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(c) and (d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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.