Case 2502021/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Wedgewood v Marlow Foods Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 2502021/2020
- Decision date
- 11 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Wedgewood
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Wedgewood brought a single complaint of unfair dismissal against Marlow Foods Ltd. At the hearing on 11 March 2021, there was no attendance or representation for the claimant. Employment Judge Martin recorded that the respondent was represented by Mr A Sutherland, solicitor.
The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal complaint and dismissed it. The reason given was that the claimant failed to respond to the strike out warning issued on 23 January 2021, failed to attend the preliminary hearing on the day, and was not actively pursuing the claim.
The tribunal referred to Rule 37(2) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunal Regulations 2013 as the basis for the strike-out decision. No compensation or other monetary remedy was awarded or recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal stated that the claimant's complaint of unfair dismissal was struck out and dismissed because he did not respond to the strike out warning, did not attend the preliminary hearing, and the claim was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(2) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.