Case 3304148/2020 · Employment Tribunal
M Cripps v Marshall Motor Group Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3304148/2020
- Decision date
- 4 September 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lang Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
M Cripps
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant's claim was listed for a telephone preliminary hearing, but the claimant did not attend. The judgment records that the claimant later forwarded an email dated 7 January 2021 asking for a further four weeks to prepare because he had been ill, but the email did not explain his failure to attend the preliminary hearing.
The Tribunal had previously ordered the claimant on 4 September 2020 to provide further information by 2 October 2020. The judgment records that the claimant did not provide it, did not reply to a later letter requiring it by 4 December 2020, and responded only after being warned on 7 January 2021 that strike out was being considered.
Employment Judge Lang stated that regard was had to the overriding objective of dealing with cases fairly and justly, but concluded that striking out the claim was appropriate because of the claimant's complete disobedience of the order dated 4 September 2020.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment describes the claim as struck out under Rule 37 for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order. The underlying claim type is taken from the listing category and Layer 1 hint, as the short judgment itself refers only to 'the claim'. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
- overriding objective
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.