Case 3314808/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr Jay Doshi v Coca-Cola European Partners Great Britain Limited — 2021
- Case reference
- 3314808/2020
- Decision date
- 6 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr Jay Doshi
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal struck out Mr Jay Doshi’s case under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The respondent had applied on 8 July 2021 on the basis of the claimant’s non-compliance with case management orders and his failure to respond to the solicitors’ attempts to engage with him.
On 6 September 2021 Employment Judge R Lewis wrote to the claimant warning that the tribunal was considering strike out because the claim appeared not to be actively pursued, and gave a time limit to object. The reasons record that a month had passed after that deadline with no response from the claimant. Employment Judge Tobin concluded that the claim was no longer being actively pursued and that, because of repeated failures to engage with the tribunal process, a fair hearing was no longer possible. No merits findings or monetary remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claimant’s claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because the case was not being actively pursued and the claimant had repeatedly failed to engage with the tribunal process. The reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The judgment struck out the claimant’s claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because the case was not being actively pursued and the claimant had repeatedly failed to engage with the tribunal process. The reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claimant’s claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because the case was not being actively pursued and the claimant had repeatedly failed to engage with the tribunal process. The reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment struck out the claimant’s claims under Rule 37(1)(d) because the case was not being actively pursued and the claimant had repeatedly failed to engage with the tribunal process. The reasons do not separately analyse this head of claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.