Case 2501664/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Nichols v Prima Nova Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501664/2021
- Decision date
- 20 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Nichols
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal dealt with claims of unfair dismissal, unauthorised deductions from wages, and unlawful discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. By letter dated 5 January 2022, it gave the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about why the claims should not be struck out because he had not attended the hearing listed for 17 December 2021 and had not told the Tribunal that he would not be attending.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had failed to comply with its direction to provide an adequate explanation for not attending the hearing on 17 December 2021. It described the claimant's correspondence as vexatious and concluded that it was in the interests of justice to strike out the claims. The judgment records that the claims were struck out and dismissed. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the claimant failed to attend the hearing on 17 December 2021 and failed to provide an adequate explanation in response to the Tribunal's direction. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out on the same basis as the other claims: non-attendance at the listed hearing and failure to provide an adequate explanation. | Struck out | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | Struck out on the same basis as the other claims: non-attendance at the listed hearing and failure to provide an adequate explanation. | Struck out | Sexual orientation | — |
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.