Case 2408140/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lennox Respondent Marston’s Trading Limited v Respondent — 2021
- Case reference
- 2408140/2021
- Decision date
- 22 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cronshaw
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Mr A Lennox Respondent Marston’s Trading Limited
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis case was listed for final hearing of the claimant's unfair dismissal claim on 24 November 2021, but the respondent applied for strike out because the claimant had continued to fail to engage with the proceedings and had not complied with case management orders. The claimant did not attend the hearing. Counsel for the respondent also invited dismissal under Rule 47, but the tribunal proceeded to consider strike out under Rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant's unfair dismissal claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) for persistent non-compliance with case management orders. The tribunal did not determine the merits of the dismissal claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
7 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(e) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Williams v Real Care Agency Ltd 2012 ICR D27
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James [2006] IRLR 630
- Baber v Royal Bank of Scotland plc EAT 0301/15
- Rule 47 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.