Case 3314743/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Richards v Mr J Gilchrist t/a Beechhall Joinery — 2022
- Case reference
- 3314743/2020
- Decision date
- 19 January 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge McAvoy Newns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Richards
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr C Richards' claim against Mr J Gilchrist t/a Beechhall Joinery. It had written to the claimant on 17 November 2021 saying it was considering strike out because the claim was not being actively pursued and because he had not complied with the tribunal's case management orders. That letter followed the final hearing listed for 9 November 2021, which the claimant did not attend.
The claimant was given an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing on that issue, by 30 November 2021. He was then given a further opportunity by letter dated 18 December 2021, with a reply requested by 4 January 2022. The correspondence was sent by first class post and email, but no representations were made in writing or otherwise and no hearing was requested.
In light of that non-engagement, the tribunal ordered that the claim be struck out. No compensation or other monetary remedy was recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim because it was not being actively pursued and the claimant had not complied with case management orders. The claimant did not attend the final hearing on 9 November 2021 and did not respond to the tribunal's later opportunities to make representations or request a hearing. | Struck out | — | — |
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.