Case 2501192/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Toas v George Allinson Transport Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2501192/2022
- Decision date
- 16 January 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge SE Langridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Toas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 10 November 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner; the claimant had not complied with orders to provide information and documents by 24 October 2022; he did not attend the hearing listed for 3 November 2022; the claims were not being actively pursued; and the absence of information from the claimant meant it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing of the issues.
The claimant emailed the Tribunal on 7 November 2022, but the judgment records that he did not make sufficient representations against strike out and did not request a hearing. The email also failed to provide information or clarification about the claim. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 on 16 January 2023. No remedy or monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not describe the underlying substantive claim in the reasons. Classification follows the GOV.UK listing category. The claim was struck out under rule 37 without a merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious
- fair hearing of the issues
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.