Case 2405734/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Deshpande v University of Liverpool — 2021
- Case reference
- 2405734/2019
- Decision date
- 31 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Benson Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Deshpande
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 23 January 2021, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on whether the case should be struck out. The stated grounds were that the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal’s order of 5 October 2020 to provide a Schedule of Loss and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim on 25 March 2021. The hearing listed for 14 to 18 March 2022 did not take place. The judgment does not contain any substantive findings on the merits of the underlying 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 judgment does not separately address this head; it records that the claim as a whole was struck out for failure to provide a Schedule of Loss and for not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not separately address this head; it records that the claim as a whole was struck out for failure to provide a Schedule of Loss and for not being 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.