Case 3305643/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v Patel v Hilton Ltd T/a Roma Contracts — 2021
- Case reference
- 3305643/2020
- Decision date
- 26 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Heal’s
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 12 October 2021, the tribunal gave the claimants an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing about the respondent’s application to strike out the claims. Neither claimant responded to the tribunal by the 19 October 2021 deadline, and there was no objection to the strike-out proposal and no request for a hearing.
The respondent’s representatives had also written on 4 October 2021 describing repeated failures by the claimants to respond to queries, to help prepare for the hearing, and to comply with case management orders. The only contact from either claimant mentioned in the reasons was an email from Mr D Varsani on 15 June 2021 saying he was considering withdrawing his claims; the tribunal noted that this was irrelevant to Mr V Patel’s position and was not the reason for the strike-out decision for Mr Varsani.
Employment Judge Quill held that the claimants had failed to comply with Employment Judge Heal’s order of 7 February 2021, failed to comply with any of the orders of 3 May 2021, and had not actively pursued the claims. On that basis, the claims were struck out under Rule 37. The hearing listed for 3 to 5 November 2021 was vacated.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive claim type. It records that each claim by each claimant was struck out. | 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.