Case 3206244/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Lewis Green v Smarter Home Improvements Ltd — 2022
- Case reference
- 3206244/2021
- Decision date
- 9 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Lewis Green
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr Lewis Green presented claims for breach of contract, unlawful deduction from wages, holiday pay and unfair dismissal on 6 October 2021. The tribunal recorded no subsequent communication from him after the claim was lodged. On 15 October 2021 the tribunal wrote to him warning that he appeared to have been employed for less than two years, so the tribunal could not consider his unfair dismissal complaint, and invited written reasons by 29 October 2021 as to why that claim should not be struck out. No response was received.
The respondent did not reply to the notice of claim or any later communication. On 6 December 2021 the tribunal sent both parties notice of the hearing and case management directions, but there was no evidence that the directions had been complied with and no complaint from the claimant about the respondent's non-compliance. On 7 February 2022, after the respondent had failed to engage, the tribunal required the claimant to file an electronic bundle and witness statements by 2 March 2022. He did not do so.
Neither party attended the hearing on 9 March 2022. Because the claimant had not given a telephone number on the claim form, the tribunal could not ask about his non-attendance. The tribunal found, from his disengagement with the proceedings, that he was not actively pursuing the claim. It therefore struck out the claim under rule 37(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure.
In deciding not to give a further warning, the tribunal took account of the claimant's complete disengagement, the brief period of employment he alleged, the consequent low value of the claim, and his failure to attend the hearing, noting that the claim could in any event have been dismissed under rule 47.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Part of the overall claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Part of the overall claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | Part of the overall claim struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal had previously warned that the claimant appeared to have less than two years' service, but the final disposal was strike out for non-pursuit rather than a merits decision. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure
- rule 47
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.