Case 3319870/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Mr. R Chaudhry- Solicitor — 2021
- Case reference
- 3319870/2019
- Decision date
- 16 September 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant, Mr Callum Hamilton, worked for Royal Mail Group Ltd as a postman from 13 March 2019 until he resigned in September 2019. His claim, presented on 28 June 2019 after early conciliation between 21 and 29 May 2019, included complaints of race discrimination, harassment, and unauthorised deduction of wages.
A preliminary hearing took place on 11 December 2020 before Employment Judge Loy. Case management orders required further information by 15 January 2021 and a statement of remedy and schedule of loss by 29 January 2021. The reasons record that the claimant did not comply with those orders, and the respondent sought Unless Orders. The record of the preliminary hearing was sent to the parties on 3 March 2021, and it appears that the claimant then served further information and a schedule of loss around 7 April 2021.
The final hearing listed for 6 September 2021 was cancelled and converted into a preliminary hearing to consider the claim and draft a list of issues. The claimant did not attend at 10am, did not answer telephone calls, and did not respond to an email asking whether he would attend. The respondent said the hearing bundle had been sent by email and post without acknowledgment.
The tribunal found that the case was not being actively pursued and struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment notes that the claimant may apply for reconsideration under Rule 70 within 14 days of the judgment being sent to him.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Part of the claimant's pleaded complaints; the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued, without reaching the merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Harassment | Part of the claimant's pleaded complaints; the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued, without reaching the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Part of the claimant's pleaded complaints; the tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(d) because it was not being actively pursued, without reaching the merits. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 37(1)(d) Employment Tribunals (Constitution & Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- Rule 70 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.