Case 3305296/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M ROBINSON v Napp Pharmaceuticals Limited — 2022
- Case reference
- 3305296/2022
- Decision date
- 11 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M ROBINSON
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal issued a judgment striking out the claim. It recorded that, by letter dated 6 November 2022, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the tribunal's order of 15 July 2022 and because the claim had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make written representations, or did not make sufficient representations, explaining why strike out should not follow, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Tynan struck out the claim. The listed hearing for 13 April 2023 did not take place.
The judgment does not record any substantive findings on the merits of the pleaded employment claims, and it records no monetary award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not set out the pleaded factual basis for the age discrimination claim; the case was struck out for non-compliance with an earlier order and because it had not been actively pursued. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not separate this claim's pleaded basis from the age discrimination allegation, but the listed case categories included unfair dismissal and the whole claim was struck out. | 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.