Case 3322610/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Thomas v Slough Borough Council — 2022
- Case reference
- 3322610/2021
- Decision date
- 6 August 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Anstis
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Thomas
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 2 July 2022, the Tribunal gave Mr A Thomas 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 dated 26 April 2022 and that the case had not been actively pursued.
Mr Thomas did not make representations in writing, did not make sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim. The judgment records no substantive determination of the underlying merits and no remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim list, but the case context identifies an age discrimination claim among the proceedings. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 26 April 2022 and had not actively pursued the case. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment does not set out the pleaded claim list, but the case context identifies a disability discrimination claim among the proceedings. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 26 April 2022 and had not actively pursued the case. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment does not list the pleaded causes of action, but the case context identifies an unfair dismissal claim among the proceedings. The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 26 April 2022 and had not actively pursued the case. | 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.