Case 3319422/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr T Docherty v Londonenergy Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 3319422/2019
- Decision date
- 4 December 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Tynan
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr T Docherty
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 4 December 2021, the tribunal gave Mr T Docherty an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing explaining why the claim should not be struck out because it had not been actively pursued. The claimant did not make representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing.
Employment Judge Tynan therefore struck out the claim. The judgment does not determine the underlying merits of the tribunal complaints or record any monetary award, and it is sent to the parties as a procedural disposal dated 27 January 2022.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment says only that 'the claim' was struck out after the claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. The strike-out is recorded here for the unfair dismissal claim listed in the case metadata, but the text does not separate the result by claim head. | Struck out | — | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment says only that 'the claim' was struck out after the claimant did not make sufficient written representations or request a hearing. The strike-out is recorded here for the breach of contract claim listed in the case metadata, but the text does not separate the result by claim head. | 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.