Case 3220164/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Anton Tyler v Meads Construction Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3220164/2020
- Decision date
- 26 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- East London Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Anton Tyler
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard remotely at East London Hearing Centre on 26 April 2021 before Employment Judge Tobin sitting alone. Neither party attended or participated. The judgment records that the hearing proceeded by Cloud Video Platform and that a face-to-face hearing was not held because the relevant matters could be determined remotely.
The tribunal recorded that the claimant had lost contact with the claimant in the linked cases and did not know contact details for him, and that the claimant had not complied with orders of Employment Judge Lewis dated 1 March 2021. On that basis, the tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under Rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
No liability findings or remedy assessment were made. The judgment does not set out any compensation, and the outcome recorded is that the claims were struck out.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out pursuant to Rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) because there was no attendance or participation and no compliance with earlier orders. The judgment does not distinguish this claim separately from the others. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out pursuant to Rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) because there was no attendance or participation and no compliance with earlier orders. The judgment does not distinguish this claim separately from the others. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out pursuant to Rules 37(1)(c) and 37(1)(d) because there was no attendance or participation and no compliance with earlier orders. The judgment does not distinguish this claim separately from the others. | Struck out | — | — |
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.