Case 3220481/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Carver v London Borough of Newham and 1 other — 2022
- Case reference
- 3220481/2020
- Decision date
- 13 July 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burgher Date
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr B Carver
Respondents
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 18 November 2022, the Tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were non-compliance with the Tribunal's order sent on 13 July 2022, failure to actively pursue the claim, and the Tribunal's view that a fair hearing was no longer possible because of failures to comply with case management orders. The Tribunal also recorded that the claimant had not responded to the respondent's application to strike out the claim.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records that the hearing fixed for 11 to 14 July 2023 would not take place. No substantive findings were made on the merits of any pleaded employment claim, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole for failure to comply with the Tribunal's order, failure to actively pursue the case, failure to respond to the respondent's strike-out application, and because a fair hearing was no longer possible. The judgment does not record separate merits findings on individual pleaded claims. | 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.