Case 3308901/2023 · Employment Tribunal

Mr R Collendavelloo v Lidl Great Britain Limited — 2024

Case reference: 3308901/2023
Decision date: 24 May 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Quill Date

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

Mr R Collendavelloo

Respondent

Lidl Great Britain Limited

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

By letter dated 22 May 2024, the tribunal gave the claimant until 23 May 2024 to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated grounds were that the proceedings had been conducted in a scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious manner, that the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order of 21 March 2024, and that the claim had not been actively pursued.

The claimant did not make written representations by the deadline or afterwards. The tribunal found that he had also failed to respond to the respondent representative's email of 15 May 2024 and had not commented on the email sent on 24 May 2024 at 9.46am. He did not ask for a hearing. In light of that non-response, the tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 and recorded that the hearing fixed for 28 and 29 May 2024 would not take place.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Other	The judgment does not identify the pleaded cause or causes of action; it states only that 'the claim' was struck out under rule 37.	Struck out	—	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.

Open official judgment PDF on gov.uk

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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.