Case 2600354/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr L Cant v Kuehne & Nagel Limited Considered on the papers — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600354/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Adkinson
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr L Cant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 6 October 2021 the tribunal warned Mr Cant that it was considering striking out his claim because it appeared not to be actively pursued, and invited representations confirming that he was pursuing it. No representations were made by the claimant.
On the papers on 8 December 2021, Employment Judge Adkinson struck out the whole of the claimant's claim under rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the ground that it was not being actively pursued. The listed hearing on 4, 5 and 6 July 2022 was vacated, and the judgment records no determination of the underlying merits or any monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Struck out with the whole claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no separate merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out with the whole claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no separate merits determination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out with the whole claim under rule 37(1)(d) for not being actively pursued; no separate merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 37(1)(d)
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.