Case 6000878/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Grant v B.L.I.S.S. Support Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 6000878/2024
- Decision date
- 12 October 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Dawson Appearances
- Venue
- Southampton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Grant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt Southampton on 27 September 2024, Employment Judge Dawson heard the respondent's application in Mr J Grant v B.L.I.S.S Support services Ltd. The claimant did not attend. Ms Splavska, Litigation Consultant, appeared for the respondent.
The tribunal recorded that, upon the respondent's application and pursuant to rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure, the claimant's claims were struck out because of non-compliance with the tribunal's order dated 15 July 2024. The written judgment does not set out any merits findings on the underlying claims.
The record states that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days of the written record being sent. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Struck out on the respondent's application under rule 37 for non-compliance with the tribunal's order dated 15 July 2024. The judgment does not identify this head of claim separately; the case listing categories indicate unlawful deduction from wages. | Struck out | — | — |
| Working time regulations | Struck out on the respondent's application under rule 37 for non-compliance with the tribunal's order dated 15 July 2024. The judgment does not identify this head of claim separately; the case listing categories indicate a working time claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.