Case 3314896/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Wicking v Ashtead Plant Hire Company Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 3314896/2019
- Decision date
- 10 February 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Foxwell Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Wicking
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy letter dated 14 December 2019, the tribunal gave Mr J Wicking an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The stated reasons were that he had not complied with the tribunal's order of 10 August 2019 and that the claim had not been actively pursued.
Mr Wicking did not make representations in writing, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37. The hearing listed for 10 February 2020 did not take place, and there was no merits determination or remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The strike-out order itself refers only to 'the claim'; the disability discrimination head is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because the claimant had not complied with the order dated 10 August 2019 and had not actively pursued the case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The strike-out order itself refers only to 'the claim'; the unfair dismissal head is taken from the case listing context. The tribunal struck out the claim under rule 37 because the claimant had not complied with the order dated 10 August 2019 and had not actively pursued the case. | Struck out | — | — |
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.