Case 3304601/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M A Gravestock v Barry’s Cars & Commercials Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 3304601/2024
- Decision date
- 5 August 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Warren Representation
- Venue
- Norwich
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M A Gravestock
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a public preliminary hearing in Norwich on 5 August 2025 before Employment Judge M Warren. The claimant, Mr M A Gravestock, did not attend. The respondent, Barry's Cars & Commercials Limited, was represented by Mr Crocker, solicitor.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant's claims. The written judgment states that the claims were dismissed because they had not been actively pursued and because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's orders of 17 December 2024. The judgment does not record any merits findings on the underlying claims, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the claim had not been actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's orders of 17 December 2024. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the claim had not been actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's orders of 17 December 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the claim had not been actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's orders of 17 December 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Dismissed at a public preliminary hearing because the claim had not been actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's orders of 17 December 2024. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.