Case 3305963/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Bay v Arriva London — 2024
- Case reference
- 3305963/2022
- Decision date
- 21 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Quill Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Bay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Respondent wrote to the Tribunal on 23 February 2024 saying there had been breaches of orders such that a fair hearing could not take place at the hearing listed for 25 to 27 March 2024. Its correspondence referred to the history of the case and uncertainty about who was representing the Claimant and who was sending emails on his behalf.
On 26 February 2024, the Employment Judge made an order warning the Claimant that the claim might be struck out for alleged failure to comply with the Tribunal's 16 December 2022 orders and for apparent failure to actively pursue the matter. That order was actioned on 12 March 2024, and a further letter was sent on 18 March 2024 giving the Claimant until 21 March at 4pm to confirm whether he was still pursuing the claim and to comment on the Respondent's correspondence.
The Claimant did not make written representations and did not ask for a hearing. The Judge therefore struck out the remaining claims under rule 37. The judgment records that the hearing fixed for 25 to 27 March 2024 would not take place and notes that any reconsideration application had to be made within 14 days of the judgment being sent.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all remaining claims were struck out under rule 37 after the Claimant failed to make written representations and failed to ask for a hearing. The judgment itself does not restate the substantive claim type, but the case listing identified the matter as unfair dismissal. | 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.