Case 2603929/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Lawrzecki v Brookes Jordan Ltd and 1 other — 2021
- Case reference
- 2603929/2020
- Decision date
- 20 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ahmed
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr S Lawrzecki
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Lawrzecki presented claims on 28 October 2020 alleging disability discrimination and whistleblowing detriment. He was initially represented by Mitchell Brown Ltd. The respondent stated that he had not been off sick during employment and had never made any disclosure that could amount to whistleblowing.
The case management preliminary hearing listed for 20 January 2021 was postponed because the claimant's representative said he had developed symptoms of a viral infection. The matter was relisted for 19 May 2021, but neither the claimant nor his representative attended and no explanation was given. A strike-out warning was issued and the claimant was asked to show cause why the claim should not be struck out as not actively pursued.
No response was received to the warning. The claimant's representative later wrote on 21 June 2021 to say they were no longer representing him. The tribunal then gave the claimant until 22 July 2021 to comply with the orders made on 19 May 2021. In his response of 14 July 2021, the claimant said his representative had been negligent and that he needed time to instruct new solicitors.
Employment Judge Ahmed found that the claimant had not complied with the orders, that he had taken no responsibility for progressing the matter after being told his former representatives had ceased acting, and that by 9 August 2021 he still had not instructed solicitors or complied with the orders. The judge also noted that it was 10 months since the claim was presented and the respondents still did not know the basis of the claims. The claims were struck out because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's orders dated 19 May 2021 and because the case had not been actively pursued. The hearing fixed for 22 September 2021 would not take place.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was struck out. The judgment does not determine the merits; it records non-compliance with tribunal orders dated 19 May 2021 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The whistleblowing detriment claim was struck out. The judgment does not determine the merits; it records non-compliance with tribunal orders dated 19 May 2021 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.