Case 3305880/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305880/2022
- Decision date
- 18 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge French Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the Watford Employment Tribunal on 18 March 2024, Employment Judge French struck out the claimant’s claim. The claimant did not attend; the respondent was represented by Mr J Cook, Counsel.
The tribunal struck the claim out under rule 37(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. The stated basis was that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant had been scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious.
The judgment records that the reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested in accordance with the note at the end of the decision. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The written judgment does not restate the substantive claim type; this classification follows the case listing/category for the decision. The claim was struck out under rule 37(1)(b) because the tribunal found the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37(1)(b) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.