Case 3323882/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr K Sikka v Outdoor Visual Communications Ltd — 2020
- Case reference
- 3323882/2019
- Decision date
- 31 May 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge R Lewis Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr K Sikka
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a letter dated 31 May 2020, the tribunal gave Outdoor Visual Communications Ltd an opportunity to make written representations or request a hearing on why its response should not be struck out because it had no reasonable prospect of success and/or was vexatious. The written judgment was signed by Employment Judge R Lewis Date on 5 October 2020.
The respondent did not make written representations, or did not make any sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore struck out the response. It recorded that the respondent would still be entitled to notice of any hearings and decisions of the tribunal, but could only participate in any hearing to the extent permitted by the Employment Judge.
This judgment does not record any merits findings on the claimant's substantive complaints and does not award any remedy or monetary sum.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal struck out the respondent's response under rule 37 after the respondent failed to make sufficient representations or request a hearing. The underlying substantive claims were not determined on the merits in this judgment. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37
- no reasonable prospect of success
- vexatious
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.