Case 3201940/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Dowling v Lampwick Care — 2021
- Case reference
- 3201940/2020
- Decision date
- 8 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ross’
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Dowling
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 25 November 2021, the Tribunal gave Mr D Dowling an opportunity to make representations as to why his claim should not be struck out. The stated bases were that the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, that he had not complied with EJ Ross' orders from the hearing on 2 July 2021, that he had not complied with the Tribunal's order of 25 November 2021 to provide calculations for the amount he said was owed, that he had failed to provide copies of relevant documents or say that he had none, and that he had failed to provide a witness statement.
Mr Dowling did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37. The hearing listed for 5 January 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was struck out under rule 37 after the Tribunal had given the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 25 November 2021 to explain why strike out should not follow. The reasons stated were non-compliance with EJ Ross' orders from the hearing on 2 July 2021, non-compliance with the order of 25 November 2021 to provide calculations of the amount claimed, failure to provide copies of relevant documents or say that none were held, and failure to provide a witness statement. The claimant made no written representations, or none sufficient, and did not request a hearing. | 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.