Case 3205736/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Meggs v Barts Health NHS Trust — 2023
- Case reference
- 3205736/2022
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brewer Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Meggs
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented claims alleging unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and that he was owed certain payments. After the respondent filed its response, case management orders were made requiring the claimant to provide further particulars, a schedule of loss, and to take part in preparation of a schedule of issues and disclosure.
The claimant then asked for the case management hearing to be cancelled, but did not respond when the Tribunal asked whether this amounted to withdrawal. He also did not respond to correspondence from the Tribunal or the respondent's solicitor, did not object to a strike out warning, and did not attend the open preliminary hearing listed to decide whether the claim should be struck out or dismissed.
Employment Judge Brewer found that, apart from presenting the claim, the claimant had done nothing to actively pursue it. The judge concluded that the claimant's conduct fell within rule 37(1)(d) and the principles in Evans, and struck out the claims because they were not being actively pursued.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued; there was no merits determination. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The disability discrimination claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued; there was no merits determination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment describes this as a claim that the claimant was owed certain payments. It was struck out with the other claims because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(d) of the Tribunal's Rules 2013
- Evans and another v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis 1993 ICR 151
- Birkett v James 1978 AC 297
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.