Case 6011535/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Lear v GEA Process Engineering Limited — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011535/2024
- Decision date
- 8 May 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Rayner
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Lear
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 24 March 2025 the tribunal wrote to the claimant under Rule 38, indicating that it was considering striking out a disability discrimination complaint because the claimant had not written back to confirm or deny that any such claim was being pursued. The tribunal noted that there was no reference to disability discrimination in the grounds, although the claimant referred to victimisation and to a comment about being a carer for a disabled son, so it appeared the disability discrimination box had been ticked in error unless the claimant responded to say otherwise within 14 days.
The claimant did not respond to that correspondence. The tribunal therefore found that the complaint had not been actively pursued within Rule 38(1)(d) and struck out the disability discrimination complaints. The reasons do not record any substantive determination of liability on the merits.
The tribunal noted that the claimant's remaining claim stayed listed for hearing on 25 June 2025.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The tribunal struck out the disability discrimination complaint under Rule 38(1)(d) because the claimant did not respond to the tribunal's correspondence of 24 March 2025 confirming or denying that such a claim was being pursued. The reasons note that there was no reference to a disability discrimination claim in the grounds, although the claimant referred to victimisation and to a comment about being a carer for a disabled son, and the box appeared to have been ticked in error. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38(1)(d) 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.