Case 2600593/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr P Ennis v Hermes Parcelnet Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 2600593/2024
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
- Venue
- Midlands East Tribunal
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr P Ennis
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr P Ennis's claim against Hermes Parcelnet Limited was listed for a final hearing in November 2025, but at a preliminary hearing on 21 February 2025 Employment Judge Brewer struck it out under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. The judge recorded that the claim had been presented on 12 April 2024, that the claimant had last worked for the respondent in February 2024, and that he had failed to comply with case management orders requiring a schedule of loss and lists of documents. The judge also noted that the claimant's attendance was important because the claim was poorly pleaded and his evidence was needed to identify his disability and the legal claims being made.
The tribunal had already listed a preliminary hearing for 8 August 2024, which the claimant did not attend, leading to an unless order. At the 21 February 2025 hearing the claimant again did not attend in person or join in time; after the hearing the tribunal received an email saying he had telephoned twice, had difficulty reading the email containing the PIN, and had miswritten a digit. The judge did not accept that explanation, considered the conduct consistent with a failure to prosecute the case, and decided to strike out the claim. The judgment also records that if the claimant has a good reason for his absence he may apply for reconsideration.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The reasons do not set out the substantive allegation; disability discrimination is taken from the case listing categories in the case context. The claim was struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The reasons do not set out the substantive allegation; this classification is taken from the case listing categories in the case context. The claim was struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The reasons do not set out the substantive allegation; this classification is taken from the case listing categories in the case context. The claim was struck out under Rule 47. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of The Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.