Case 3200206/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr I Gabbidon v Regency Homes Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3200206/2020
- Decision date
- 27 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Moor Members
- Panel members
- Mr T Burrows, Mrs B Sau
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr I Gabbidon
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr I Gabbidon presented claims for unfair dismissal, race discrimination, age discrimination and holiday pay on 16 January 2020. Case management orders made on 19 March 2020 required further information on the discrimination claims and a remedy statement, and later orders made by Employment Judge Jones on 15 June 2020 required documents, a schedule of loss and witness statements by set dates. The claimant provided further particulars on 19 June 2020, but he did not provide documents, a schedule of loss or a witness statement.
The hearing on 27 August 2020 proceeded as an application by the respondent to strike out the claims. On the morning of the hearing the claimant emailed saying he had a medical emergency and asked for an adjournment, but he did not explain what the emergency was. The tribunal refused to adjourn, noting that the material sent did not support the assertion of an emergency and that the claimant had not given any proper explanation for his absence or for the lack of preparation.
The tribunal rejected the respondent's submission that the claims had no reasonable prospects of success. It held, however, that the claims should be struck out because they had not been actively pursued and because the claimant had failed to comply with three tribunal orders without good reason. The tribunal found that the claimant had done nothing to progress the case after 19 June 2020, and that a fair hearing would not be possible in those circumstances. No merits findings or remedy were made.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out because the claim was not actively pursued and the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Struck out because the claim was not actively pursued and the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Age discrimination | Struck out because the claim was not actively pursued and the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Holiday pay | Struck out because the claim was not actively pursued and the claimant failed to comply with tribunal orders. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(c) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- Overriding Objective
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.