Case 3321280/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Respondent — 2020
- Case reference
- 3321280/2019
- Decision date
- 30 July 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Alliott Appearances
- Venue
- Watford
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant was dismissed on 12 January 2018, so the primary limitation period expired on 11 April 2018. He presented the claim form on 5 August 2019, after an early conciliation period from 4 to 11 June 2019, which the tribunal recorded as nearly 1 year and 3 months out of time.
At the preliminary hearing on 1 April 2020, Employment Judge Alliott noted that the claimant had not complied with earlier case management orders, including an order to provide a witness statement, and did not attend by telephone. The tribunal found that he had no reasonable prospect of showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time, or that the claim had been presented within a reasonable period afterwards.
The tribunal also found that the claimant had wholly failed to comply with the orders made by the tribunal and, together with his non-attendance, concluded that the claim was not being actively pursued. The respondent name was amended to Veolia (ES) UK Limited, and the claimant's claims were struck out under Rules 37(a), (c) and (d) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was presented on 5 August 2019 after dismissal on 12 January 2018, so it was nearly 1 year 3 months out of time. The tribunal found the claimant had no reasonable prospect of showing that it was not reasonably practicable to present the claim in time or that it was presented within a reasonable period thereafter. The claimant also failed to comply with tribunal orders and did not attend the hearing, and the claim was struck out under Rules 37(a), (c) and (d). | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- not reasonably practicable
- Rule 37(a), (c) and (d)
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.