Case 3305611/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Z Sadowski v Staffline Recruitment Limited and 1 other — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305611/2023
- Decision date
- 31 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Shastri- Hurst
- Venue
- Watford Tribunal
Parties
3 namedClaimant
Mr Z Sadowski
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Second Respondent applied for strike out on 14 August 2024. The application was sent to the Claimant's representative and then to the Claimant, and the Tribunal wrote on 22 August 2024 stating that strike out would be considered at the hearing on 23 August 2024. The Claimant did not respond or attend the hearing.
The Tribunal heard that the Claimant had not provided the medical evidence and impact statement required by Employment Judge Shastri-Hurst's order of 28 February 2024, had not provided a Schedule of Loss, and had not responded to a reminder sent on 25 June 2024. It was satisfied that the Claimant had notice of the application and an opportunity to respond.
The Tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because the Claimant had not complied with Tribunal orders, had not attended the hearing, and the claim had not been actively pursued. The listed final hearing in April to May 2025 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole. The judgment text does not separately analyse the disability discrimination claim, but the listing category identifies Disability Discrimination. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole. The judgment text does not separately analyse the breach of contract claim, but the listing category identifies Breach of Contract. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.