Case 3301660/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Tomasz Jakubowski v Ceva Logistics Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3301660/2020
- Decision date
- 7 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cassel
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Tomasz Jakubowski
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered whether the claimant's case should be struck out after he failed to provide further information ordered on 17 April 2020. The claim form referred broadly to discrimination, but the boxes identifying the type of claim were not completed, and the respondent had repeatedly asked for particulars that were not provided. The claimant accepted at the preliminary hearing that, apart from limited emails, he had taken almost no steps to pursue the claim since it was presented on 3 February 2020.
The judge found that the claimant had received the relevant correspondence, orders and warning notices, but had not complied with the order requiring him to identify the protected characteristic, the strand of discrimination alleged, and the factual details relied on. The tribunal concluded that the default was intentional and showed disrespect for the tribunal's procedures, and that there had been inordinate and inexcusable delay.
The claims were struck out under Rule 37 both because they had not been actively pursued and because the claimant had failed to comply with a tribunal order. The judge also found that the delay would cause considerable prejudice to the respondent and would make a fair hearing no longer possible, and that a lesser sanction was not appropriate.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The ET1 referred broadly to 'Discrimination', but the claimant did not identify any protected characteristic or strand of discrimination despite an order for further information. The judgment therefore does not clearly specify the precise legal claim or claims beyond an insufficiently particularised discrimination complaint. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 37 of the Rules of Procedure
- Rule 2 overriding objective
- Birkett v James [1978] AC 297
- Evans and Anor v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [1993] ICR 151 CA
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.