Case 2420093/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Durrant v Warburtons Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2420093/2020
- Decision date
- 22 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Durrant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 25 May 2021, the Tribunal gave Mr Durrant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing by 8 June 2021 as to why the claims should not be struck out because he had not complied with the Tribunal's orders of 9 January 2021 and the claims had not been actively pursued. He did not make any written representations by the deadline.
Mr Durrant sent an email on 15 June 2021, but the Tribunal said it was difficult to understand and that it did not address his non-compliance with the Tribunal's orders. The Tribunal found that he remained in breach and had given no indication that he would remedy those breaches by taking the steps required to prepare for the final hearing.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claims. The final hearing listed for 3 August 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claims generally under rule 37 for failure to comply with Tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the case; it did not separate the underlying claims individually. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claims generally under rule 37 for failure to comply with Tribunal orders and failure to actively pursue the case; it did not separate the underlying claims individually. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.