Case 3304211/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Brett Hamilton v Ocado Central Services Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3304211/2022
- Decision date
- 2 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tobin
- Venue
- Watford Hearing Centre
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Brett Hamilton
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend or participate in the remote hearing at Watford Hearing Centre on 2 December 2022. The respondent was represented by counsel, and Employment Judge Tobin sat alone.
The Tribunal decided to proceed in the claimant's absence under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. It struck out the claimant's claims on the basis that they had no reasonable prospects of success under rule 37(1)(a). Oral reasons were given at the hearing, with written reasons only to be provided if requested within the stated time limit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not set out the individual causes of action; classification follows the listing category and Layer 1 hint, while the judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment does not set out the individual causes of action; classification follows the listing category and Layer 1 hint, while the judgment states that the claimant's claims were struck out. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- rule 37(1)(a) Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.