Case 2500619/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Jones v North East Logistics Academy Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2500619/2022
- Decision date
- 19 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Jones
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Jones brought a complaint of disability discrimination against North East Logistics Academy Limited, identifying his dismissal as the discriminatory act complained of. At a case management hearing on 25 July 2022, he conceded that his dismissal was not related to his alleged disability.
By case management orders dated 27 July 2022, the tribunal required the claimant to make representations explaining why the complaint should not be struck out. He did not comply. A public preliminary hearing was then listed to decide whether the complaint should be struck out under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The claimant sought a postponement on 8 December 2022, but that request was refused on 9 December 2022. He did not attend the hearing on 14 December 2022 and did not provide sufficient, or any, written representations. The tribunal therefore struck out the disability discrimination complaint on the basis that it had no reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged that his dismissal was discriminatory. At a case management hearing on 25 July 2022, he conceded that his dismissal was not related to his alleged disability. He did not comply with an order to make representations against strike out, did not attend the 14 December 2022 hearing, and made no sufficient written representations. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- no reasonable prospects of success
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.