Case 3200152/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Niththiyananthan v Tesco Stores Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 3200152/2023
- Decision date
- 8 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Allen KC
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Niththiyananthan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought claims of race discrimination and religion or belief discrimination. The judgment recorded that he did not attend the strike-out hearing, and that attempts to contact him by email and telephone received no response.
The tribunal found that the Claimant had not complied with case management orders, had not engaged with the Respondent or the Tribunal since around August 2023, and had not responded to a strike-out warning or later listing of the preliminary hearing. The tribunal concluded that the failure to engage amounted to an intentional failure and showed that the claim was not being actively pursued.
The tribunal held that strike out was proportionate because the final hearing dates had been lost, the case was not ready to proceed, the Respondent had been prejudiced by the late loss of the hearing dates, and there was no basis for confidence that the Claimant would comply with orders or engage in future.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the race discrimination allegation. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) and (d) for non-compliance with tribunal orders and because it had not been actively pursued. The tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of the religion or belief discrimination allegation. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
9 references- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Blockbuster v James [2006] IRLR 630
- Bolch v Chipman [2004] IRLR 140
- Weir Valves and Controls (UK) Ltd v Armitage [2004] ICR 371
- Emuemukoro v Croma [2022] ICR 327
- Evans v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1993] ICR 151 CA
- Birkett v James [1978] AC 297
- Department of Transport v Chris Smaller (Transport) Ltd [1989] AC 1197
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.