Case 2600592/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Lambert v Tony Team Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 2600592/2020
- Decision date
- 30 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Butler
- Venue
- Nottingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Lambert
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge M Butler sitting alone on 29 April 2021. The tribunal recorded that the claimant, Mr J Lambert, did not attend. Notice of the hearing had been given, and a late application to postpone the hearing was refused because it was made very late and Mr Lambert had previously indicated he would instruct solicitors.
In the claimant's absence, the tribunal considered the papers, including an impact statement, a medical report, and the pleadings. The medical report from Dr S Vohra, dated 20 June 2018, did not support the claimant's account that he had lost the sight in his left eye or his peripheral vision. It said his vision had returned to normal after around six weeks, and it also recorded no specific disruption to planned or scheduled social or recreational activities and no regular hobbies or recreational activities affected.
Against that background, the tribunal concluded that the disability discrimination claim was not being actively pursued and struck it out. The judgment also recorded that the unfair dismissal element of the claim had already been listed for a three-day hearing on 28, 29 and 30 June 2021, so no merits decision was made on that part of the case in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Preliminary hearing. The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination claim on the grounds that it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.