Case 3307837/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr G Jelly v White Transport Services Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3307837/2020
- Decision date
- 15 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Judge's Surname
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr G Jelly
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 9 January 2021, the tribunal gave the claimant an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing as to why the age discrimination and disability discrimination complaints should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that no representations were made, or no sufficient representations were made, and no hearing was requested.
The tribunal therefore struck out both the age discrimination and disability discrimination complaints. The reason given was that no particulars had been provided from which the tribunal could conclude that there was age or disability discrimination.
The judgment states that the claimant’s remaining claim(s) remained listed for hearing on 15 July 2021. No monetary remedy is recorded in this judgment.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The tribunal struck out the age discrimination complaint because no particulars had been given from which it could conclude that there was age discrimination, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the 9 January 2021 letter. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination complaint on the same basis: no particulars were provided from which it could conclude that there was disability discrimination, and the claimant did not make sufficient representations or request a hearing after the 9 January 2021 letter. | Struck out | Disability | — |
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.