Case 2603611/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Bell v Decidebloom Ltd t/a Stoneacre — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603611/2020
- Decision date
- 16 March 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Victoria Butler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Bell
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 16 March 2021 Employment Judge Camp struck out Mr I Bell's claim under rule 37 because it had not been actively pursued. The Tribunal had previously written on 2 March 2021 giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why strike out should not follow.
The claimant replied that he had lost heart with the process and was unable to grasp the legal language. The Tribunal noted that he did not copy the respondent's representatives with that email, had not given a clear answer when previously asked whether he was withdrawing the claim, and did not provide any meaningful explanation for failing to comply with the case management orders made by Employment Judge Victoria Butler at the preliminary hearing on 15 December 2020.
As a result, the claim was struck out and the hearings listed for 26 March 2021, 20 May 2021 and 7 to 9 February 2022 did not take place.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; merits not determined. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; merits not determined. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; merits not determined. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out under rule 37 for not being actively pursued; merits not determined. | 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.