Case 2600411/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Bryce v Sentry Consulting Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 2600411/2021
- Decision date
- 23 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Bryce
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the open preliminary hearing on 23 August 2022, Employment Judge M Butler considered the Claimant's application to strike out the Respondent's response for alleged non-compliance with an Unless Order made after earlier case management directions. The outstanding issues concerned the hearing bundle and the exchange of witness statements before the final hearing listed for 3 to 5 October 2022.
The Tribunal held that the Respondent had complied with the order so far as it was possible and feasible to do so. In relation to the bundle, paragraph 20 of Employment Judge Brewer's order allowed a hard copy and/or PDF copy to be sent, so the electronic bundle sent on 19 July 2022 was sufficient. In relation to witness statements, the Tribunal noted that paragraph 28 required exchange of hard and/or PDF copies, but concluded that the Respondent could not be blamed for not completing exchange by the deadline where the Claimant, by his own admission, was not ready to do so.
The Tribunal decided that it was not in the interests of justice or proportionate to strike out the response. The judgment therefore records that the response is not struck out, and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | This judgment does not determine a substantive employment claim. It is a preliminary hearing on whether the response should be struck out for alleged non-compliance with an Unless Order, and the Tribunal held that the response was not struck out. | Other | — | — |
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.