Case 2413757/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Lal v Phillips & Cohen Associates (UK) Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2413757/2019
- Decision date
- 2 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Franey
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Lal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded a long history of delay and failure by the claimant to comply with directions. The case had been listed for a final hearing on 15 to 19 March 2021, and the respondent had written to the tribunal several times before the hearing date about lack of compliance with case management orders and lack of communication from the claimant.
On 20 January 2021, Regional Employment Judge Franey refused the respondent's strike out application but directed that witness evidence had to be exchanged by 4 pm on Friday 12 February 2021, with the consequence that any non-compliant evidence could not be relied on at the hearing. The claimant did not comply with that deadline and did not request an extension or otherwise respond.
On 22 February 2021, the tribunal wrote to the claimant informing him that he was debarred from giving or calling any evidence and invited representations on why the claim should not be struck out. No response was received. In those circumstances, the tribunal struck out the claim for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it was not being actively pursued. The hearing listed for 15 to 19 March 2021 was cancelled. No merits findings or remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the whole claim and does not separately set out individual claim outcomes; this discrimination claim is inferred from the gov.uk listing category and struck out with the rest of the case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment strikes out the whole claim and does not separately set out individual claim outcomes; this unfair dismissal claim is inferred from the gov.uk listing category and struck out with the rest of the case. | 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.