Case 2601680/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G D'Amore v SPS Technologies Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2601680/2018
- Decision date
- 7 October 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Clark
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G D'Amore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr D'Amore did not participate in the telephone preliminary hearing on 10 September 2019. The tribunal gave him an opportunity to contact the tribunal by 20 September 2019, explain his absence, and confirm that he wished his claim to continue, warning that strike out was being considered if he did not do so.
He did not reply by the deadline, and there was no later response before the file came back before Employment Judge Clark on the respondent's strike-out application. The judge held that it was proportionate to strike out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order of 10 September 2019 and the claim had not been actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 37 for failure to participate in the telephone preliminary hearing, failure to respond by the deadline, and not actively pursuing the case. The specific complaint type is not identified in the judgment text and is inferred from the case listing category of breach of contract. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole under rule 37 for failure to comply with the tribunal's order and lack of active pursuit. The specific complaint type is not identified in the judgment text and is inferred from the case listing category of redundancy. | 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.