Case 3200729/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Nayeem v The Co-Operative Group Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 3200729/2023
- Decision date
- 30 August 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Nayeem
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant brought a claim for unfair dismissal arising from his dismissal on 1 March 2023 after an interaction with a known shoplifter and an internal disciplinary process. The final hearing was listed for 1 and 2 November 2023. The claimant did not attend on 1 November 2023, did not respond to attempts to contact him that morning, and had not provided his own witness statement or a schedule of compensation as required by case management orders.
The respondent applied to strike out the claim because of the claimant's non-compliance with tribunal orders and failure actively to pursue the claim. The tribunal had sent a strike out warning on 26 October 2023 asking the claimant to explain his compliance and readiness for the final hearing; he did not respond.
The tribunal considered whether a fair hearing remained possible. It found the claimant's failure to comply with the case management orders was blameworthy and unexplained, and that participation, including providing a witness statement in advance, was essential to a fair trial. The tribunal struck out the unfair dismissal claim under rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d), but did not strike it out on the basis of no reasonable prospect of success because the claim would have involved contested evidence if it had proceeded with the claimant's compliance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The unfair dismissal claim was struck out under rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) for non-compliance with case management orders and failure actively to pursue the claim. The tribunal declined to strike out under rule 37(1)(a). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- rule 37(1)(c) ET Rules 2013
- rule 37(1)(d) ET Rules 2013
- rule 37(1)(a) ET Rules 2013
- Blockbuster v James [2006] EWCA Civ 684
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.