Case 2601209/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr W Clayborn v Grassform Plant Hire Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601209/2019
- Decision date
- 23 July 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Britton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr W Clayborn
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a strike out judgment on the unfair dismissal complaint only. The tribunal recorded that, by letter dated 14 June 2019, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal claim should not be struck out because of lack of qualifying service.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Britton ordered that the complaint of unfair dismissal be struck out under rule 37. The judgment also records that the claimant's remaining claim for non-payment of wages remained listed for hearing on 6 September 2019 and was not decided in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 37 after the tribunal wrote on 14 June 2019 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the unfair dismissal complaint should not be struck out for lack of qualifying service. The claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The judgment notes that the claimant's remaining claim of non-payment of wages stayed listed for hearing on 6 September 2019 and was not determined in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.