Case 3305384/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr R Rogers v Ceva Logistics Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305384/2023
- Decision date
- 1 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Richard Wood
- Venue
- Remotely via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr R Rogers
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing on 1 November 2024, the tribunal struck out the claimant's claims under rule 37. The judge recorded that strike-out is a remedy of last resort and considered whether a lesser sanction would be fair and proportionate in all the circumstances.
The tribunal took account of limited medical evidence showing that the claimant had anxiety and depression and accepted that those conditions imposed some limitation on his ability to conduct proceedings. However, the judge found that the claimant had capacity and was able to participate, but had repeatedly failed to attend hearings, failed to comply with case management directions, and failed to provide required steps in preparation for the final hearing, including confirming whether he wished to proceed.
The judge also found that the claimant had repeatedly stated that he did not accept the tribunal's jurisdiction and instead wanted the claim determined by the Crown. On that basis, the tribunal found failures to comply with directions, failures actively to pursue the claims, and unreasonable conduct. The judge concluded that there was no prospect of the claimant's approach changing, and that continuing the proceedings would be unfair to the respondent and a disproportionate use of tribunal resources.
Claims and outcomes
5 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing categories provided in Layer 1; the judgment itself refers only to the claimant's claims collectively and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing categories provided in Layer 1; the judgment itself refers only to the claimant's claims collectively and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing categories provided in Layer 1; the judgment itself refers only to the claimant's claims collectively and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Underlying claim type inferred from the case listing categories provided in Layer 1; the judgment itself refers only to the claimant's claims collectively and does not restate each cause of action. | Struck out | — | — |
| Other | Likely corresponds to the Health & Safety listing category in Layer 1, which does not map cleanly onto the locked taxonomy from the judgment text alone. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- overriding objectives
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.