Case 3304014/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Buck v Costco Wholesale (UK) Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304014/2022
- Decision date
- 27 October 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Buck
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out the claim after giving the claimant, by letter dated 17 September 2022, an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why strike-out should not occur.
The stated reasons were that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 26 June 2022 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. The claimant either failed to make written representations or failed to make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
As a result, the claim was struck out and the hearing listed for 3 November 2022 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and lack of active pursuit. Individual pleaded claims are inferred from the gov.uk listing categories rather than set out in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and lack of active pursuit. Individual pleaded claims are inferred from the gov.uk listing categories rather than set out in the judgment text. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Part-time worker regulations | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and lack of active pursuit. Individual pleaded claims are inferred from the gov.uk listing categories rather than set out in the judgment text. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that 'the claim' was struck out for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and lack of active pursuit. Individual pleaded claims are inferred from the gov.uk listing categories rather than set out in the judgment text. | 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.