Case 3306646/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v BSH Distribution Centre — 2019
- Case reference
- 3306646/2019
- Decision date
- 18 December 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Johnson Appearances
- Venue
- Cambridge
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal dealt only with the claimant’s unfair dismissal complaint. It had previously given the claimant an opportunity by letter dated 4 May 2019 to explain why the dismissal was said to be unfair and why the tribunal had jurisdiction despite the claimant not having two years’ service. The claimant did not respond to that letter, and an order from Employment Judge Ord on 27 June 2019 confirmed that the matter would be addressed at the preliminary hearing.
The claimant emailed on 28 June 2019 saying that he was now self-employed and busy, but he did not say that he could not attend the hearing on 3 December 2019. He later failed to provide any further representations about the unfair dismissal complaint and did not tell the tribunal that he would be unable to attend.
Employment Judge Johnson struck out the unfair dismissal claim because the claimant had not shown that the complaint had any reasonable prospect of success, had not complied with the order of 4 May 2019, and had not actively pursued the matter. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out after the claimant failed to provide the further information requested by Employment Judge Laidler in the order of 4 May 2019 and failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 3 December 2019 without good reason. | Struck out | — | — |
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.