Case 3313984/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Peter v LHR Airports Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3313984/2019
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge King JUDGMENT
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Peter
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the final hearing listed for 8 November 2021. The Tribunal attempted to contact him by email and telephone and took a short adjournment, but was unable to locate him. The judgment records that the claimant had been notified of the hearing and had not attended the hearing centre.
The Tribunal found that the claimant had not prepared a witness statement, had not engaged in preparation of the trial bundle, and had not complied with earlier case management orders made on 19 November 2019 and 6 July 2020. The respondent applied for strike out under rule 37 on multiple grounds.
The Tribunal concluded that the case was not being actively pursued and that the claimant had failed to comply with Tribunal orders. It struck out the unfair dismissal claim under Rule 37(1)(d) and Rule 37(1)(c), without deciding whether the claim had reasonable prospects of success.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment expressly states that the claim for unfair dismissal is struck out. Although external listing categories refer to disability discrimination, the supplied judgment text does not expressly identify or determine a disability discrimination claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.