Case 2407704/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Jackson v B&M Retail Ltd — 2025
- Case reference
- 2407704/2023
- Decision date
- 31 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fearon
- Venue
- Manchester
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Jackson
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a public preliminary hearing on 11 March 2025, the claimant did not attend and the respondent was represented by counsel. Employment Judge Fearon sat alone.
The Tribunal struck out the claimant's claim under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal Order made on 30 January 2024 or with the revised timetable agreed by the parties and approved on 20 December 2024. The claim was also struck out under Rule 38(1)(d) because it had not been actively pursued by the claimant.
No remedy was awarded. The written record states that oral reasons were given at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within the applicable time limit.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies disability discrimination, but the judgment itself refers generally to the claimant's claim being struck out and does not set out the individual discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies race discrimination, but the judgment itself refers generally to the claimant's claim being struck out and does not set out the individual discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The gov.uk listing identifies religion or belief discrimination, but the judgment itself refers generally to the claimant's claim being struck out and does not set out the individual discrimination allegations. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing identifies unfair dismissal, but the judgment itself refers generally to the claimant's claim being struck out and does not set out the individual allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing identifies unlawful deduction from wages, but the judgment itself refers generally to the claimant's claim being struck out and does not set out the individual allegations. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(d)
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.