Case 3307005/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Natvarlal v Go2gas — 2024
- Case reference
- 3307005/2023
- Decision date
- 9 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Laidler
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Natvarlal
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 21 March 2024, the Tribunal gave Mr M Natvarlal an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The Tribunal said the proposed strike-out was because the claimant had not complied with the Orders of 20 December 2023 and because the case had not been actively pursued.
The claimant did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, Employment Judge Laidler struck out the claim. The judgment records no determination of the substantive merits of the underlying complaints.
The judgment does not record any award of compensation or other remedy. It is a case disposal decision only, with the claim struck out for non-compliance and lack of active pursuit.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | The judgment does not set out a separate merits decision; the claim was struck out after the claimant failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing in response to the Tribunal's letter of 21 March 2024. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment does not distinguish this claim separately in the reasons, but the case was struck out as a whole for failure to comply with orders and failure to actively pursue the proceedings. | 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.