Case 3303109/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2022
- Case reference
- 3303109/2021
- Decision date
- 29 June 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Not present or represented For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr J Waltham, brought a disability discrimination claim and complaints connected with detrimental treatment and automatic unfair dismissal for raising health and safety issues and making protected disclosures against Halsey Masonic Hall, Watford, Limited. Before the final hearing, Employment Judge Maxwell had made an unless order requiring further information; when the claimant did not comply, the health and safety and protected disclosure detriment and dismissal claims were automatically struck out.
The disability discrimination claim remained subject to an order for further information about the claimed disability, but the claimant did not provide the information by the extended deadline of 22 October 2022 and did not reply to the respondent's follow-up emails. He also did not attend the hearing on 10 November 2022.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, Employment Judge Hyams dismissed the remaining claims because the claimant was absent and appeared not to be pressing them. The tribunal noted that any reconsideration application would need corroboratory evidence for the absence and the further disability information previously ordered. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Remaining disability discrimination claim dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant did not attend the hearing; no merits finding was made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Other | Claim for detrimental treatment for raising health and safety issues was automatically struck out for failure to comply with the earlier order for further information. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Claim for detrimental treatment for making protected disclosures was automatically struck out for failure to comply with the earlier order for further information. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim for raising health and safety issues under section 100 ERA 1996 was automatically struck out for failure to comply with the earlier order for further information. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Automatic unfair dismissal claim for making protected disclosures under section 103A ERA 1996 was automatically struck out for failure to comply with the earlier order for further information. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
6 references- rule 38 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 70 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- section 43A Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 100 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 103A Employment Rights Act 1996
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.