Case 6015052/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Samuel v Global Group Supplies Ltd — 2026
- Case reference
- 6015052/2024
- Decision date
- 4 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Leith Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Samuel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal struck out Mr S Samuel's claim against Global Group Supplies Ltd. The judgment did not determine the merits of the unfair dismissal, race discrimination, or religion or belief discrimination allegations.
The Tribunal had written to Mr Samuel on 6 December 2025 warning that it was considering striking out the claim under Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024. It stated that he had not complied with the Tribunal's order dated 24 May 2025 and that the claim had not been actively pursued. The letter gave him an opportunity to explain why the claim should not be struck out or to request a hearing, but he did not reply. No remedy was awarded or addressed.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole and did not separately identify or determine the unfair dismissal allegation. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole and did not separately identify or determine the race discrimination allegation. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment struck out the claim as a whole and did not separately identify or determine the religion or belief discrimination allegation. | Struck out | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 38 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.