Case 2501980/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Price v Nissan Motor Manufacturing (uk) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2501980/2021
- Decision date
- 25 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Newburn Representation
- Venue
- Newcastle CFCTC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Price
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing on 25 October 2022 was listed to consider whether Mr Price's claims should be struck out. The reasons recorded were that he had not complied with the Tribunal's Order dated 15 March 2022, had failed to respond adequately or at all to Tribunal correspondence requesting information about compliance with orders, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
The Tribunal recorded that Mr Price was aware of the hearing but did not attend and did not request a postponement. It found that he had not made sufficient representations as to why his claim should not be struck out, and proceeded in his absence under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The Tribunal struck out the Claimant's claims under Rule 37 for the reasons set out in the judgment. No remedy or monetary award was recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were struck out but does not separately identify the pleaded claims in the extracted reasons; classification follows the supplied listing category context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that the Claimant's claims were struck out but does not separately identify the pleaded claims in the extracted reasons; classification follows the supplied listing category context. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- 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.