Case 3307097/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Nwogu Respondent 1: Dimensions UK Ltd Respondent 2: Camilla Maple Respondent 3: Adam Phillips v Mr S Singleton and Ms S Miller, Trowers and Hamlins LLP — 2023
- Case reference
- 3307097/2022
- Decision date
- 20 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Representation Claimant
- Venue
- Reading
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Nwogu Respondent 1: Dimensions UK Ltd Respondent 2: Camilla Maple Respondent 3: Adam Phillips
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented an ET1 on 17 June 2022. Case management orders made on 24 October 2022 required him to provide a schedule of loss by 22 November 2022 and relevant documents by 20 December 2022. He did not comply with those orders. The respondents' solicitor also tried to contact him by letter, email and through ACAS, but there was no response after the ET1.
By a letter dated 17 February 2023, the tribunal warned that the claim might be struck out for non-compliance and because it had not been actively pursued, and gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing by 9.00 am on 20 February 2023. He did not do so, and he did not attend the listed hearing. The tribunal proceeded in his absence under rule 47 and heard the respondents' strike-out application.
Applying rule 37 and referring to Rolls Royce plc v Riddle [2008] IRLR 873, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to comply with tribunal orders and had not actively pursued the claim. The judge considered it more likely than not that the non-compliance was intentional and disrespectful of the tribunal's procedures. The claim was struck out, no merits decision was made, and the hearing listed for 19 to 23 August 2024 would not take place. The judge also noted that the order requiring the claimant to identify physical or mental impairments appeared to have been a mistake because the claimant had not made a disability discrimination claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the claim for non-compliance with case management orders and because it had not been actively pursued. The judgment does not determine the merits of any substantive claim, and it notes that the order referring to physical or mental impairments appeared to have been a mistake because the claimant had not made a disability discrimination claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- rule 37 Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- Rolls Royce plc v Riddle [2008] IRLR 873
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.