Case 3313947/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr B Patel v WH Smith Retail Holdings Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3313947/2020
- Decision date
- 15 August 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr B Patel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a case management hearing on 4 August 2021, the tribunal ordered the claimant to write by 1 September 2021, copying the respondent, explaining why his disability discrimination claim should not be struck out, or stating that he was withdrawing it. The order was recorded and sent to the parties on 15 August 2021.
The claimant did not comply with that order and sent nothing to the tribunal in compliance or purported compliance. The respondent's solicitor wrote on 9 September 2021 confirming that the respondent had by then received no document complying, or purporting to comply, with the order. The tribunal therefore struck out the disability discrimination claim.
The unfair dismissal claim was not disposed of in this judgment. The tribunal recorded that it would continue and that the hearing fixed for 3 and 4 March 2022 would proceed only on the unfair dismissal claim, with the time estimate remaining two days.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under rule 37 after the claimant failed to comply with an order made following the case management hearing on 4 August 2021, sent to the parties on 15 August 2021, requiring him by 1 September 2021 to explain why the disability discrimination claim should not be struck out or confirm withdrawal. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37
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.