Case 4107462/2020 · Employment Tribunal
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4107462/2020 Mr B W Japp v Represented by: Mr G Clark Royal Mail Group Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 4107462/2020
- Decision date
- 9 February 2021
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Joseph
Parties
2 namedClaimant
EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS (SCOTLAND) Case Number: 4107462/2020 Mr B W Japp
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningFollowing a Case Management Closed Preliminary Hearing on 27 January 2021, the Tribunal sent case management orders on 9 February 2021 requiring the claimant to provide the respondent and the Tribunal with a Disability Impact Statement by 2 March 2021. The claimant did not comply with that order.
The Tribunal sent a reminder on 30 March 2021 requiring compliance by 8 April 2021, but there was no response. A strike-out warning was then sent on 21 April 2021, and the claimant was given an opportunity to provide written reasons by 28 April 2021 or to request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. No acceptable reason was provided and no hearing was requested.
The Tribunal therefore struck out the claim under rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure on the grounds of non-compliance with paragraph 9 of the Tribunal's order, under rule 37(1)(c), and because the claim had not been actively pursued, under rule 37(1)(d). No substantive merits findings or remedy were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment strikes out the claim under rule 37 because the claimant did not comply with the order to provide a Disability Impact Statement and did not respond to the reminder or strike-out warning. The judgment does not separately set out merits findings for this head. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment strikes out the claim as a whole under rule 37 for non-compliance with the Tribunal's order and for not actively pursuing the case. It does not separately discuss this head. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(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.