Case 6002958/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Ian Fagg v Londonwide Local Medical Committees — 2025
- Case reference
- 6002958/2025
- Decision date
- 23 October 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Burns
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ian Fagg
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Burns had previously made Orders dated 4 August 2025 and sent them to the parties on 12 August 2025, giving the claimant an opportunity to make representations or request a hearing on why the claim should not be struck out. The tribunal recorded that it appeared a fair hearing was no longer possible because the claim appeared to be out of time, the claimant had not complied with the Order dated 4 August 2025, and the claim had not been actively pursued.
The reasons state that the claimant did not attend the hearing on 4 August 2025 and did not respond to the Orders requiring an explanation for that non-attendance. The claimant failed to make written representations, or made no sufficient representations, and did not request a hearing. The tribunal therefore concluded that a fair hearing was not possible and struck out the claim.
The judgment does not determine the merits of any substantive claim and records no monetary award. It was approved by Employment Judge Webster on 19 September 2025 and sent to the parties on 23 October 2025.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim; the merits were not determined. The age discrimination claim type is inferred from the case listing context. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment struck out the claim; the merits were not determined. The whistleblowing claim type is inferred from the case listing context. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim; the merits were not determined. The unfair dismissal claim type is inferred from the case listing context. | 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.