Case 3313843/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr M Fletcher v Hethertons Bakery — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313843/2021
- Decision date
- 12 October 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr M Fletcher
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr M Fletcher's age discrimination claim. It said that, by letter dated 21 August 2021, the claimant had been given an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out because he had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 10 March 2021 and had not actively pursued the claim.
The tribunal found that the claimant failed to make written representations, or failed to make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. On that basis, the age discrimination claim was struck out.
The tribunal also recorded case-management consequences of that decision: the hearing fixed for 27 and 28 June 2022 was vacated, and the preliminary hearing listed for 28 January 2022 was converted to a final hearing by video before an employment judge sitting alone to consider the remaining claims for holiday pay and arrears of pay. The orders in the notice of hearing dated 22 May 2021 were said to continue to apply to those remaining claims.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | Struck out because the claimant had not complied with the tribunal's order dated 10 March 2021 and had not actively pursued the claim. The claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing in response to the letter dated 21 August 2021. | Struck out | Age | — |
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.