Case 2503794/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Graham v Castleview Group Training Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 2503794/2019
- Decision date
- 5 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Sweeney
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Graham
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Sweeney struck out the claims. The judgment records that the claimant, Mr J Graham, did not attend a hearing for which he had received notice and also failed to comply with an order requiring him to set out in writing the remedy he was seeking.
The claimant explained that he had not read the Tribunal correspondence carefully. The Tribunal said it was sympathetic to his circumstances, but that this did not explain why he did not re-read the Tribunal letter or otherwise address his mind to the claim. It found that his non-attendance was not beyond his control and that he had simply taken no action to progress the case.
The claimant had provided no evidence to support his explanation for his non-attendance and had not complied with the order of 28 January 2020. In those circumstances, the Tribunal struck out the claims pursuant to Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying claim type(s); it states only that 'these claims are struck out' because the claimant failed to attend and did not comply with an order to set out the remedy sought. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.