Case 6024748/2025 · Employment Tribunal
Mr C Smith v Department for Work and Pensions — 2026
- Case reference
- 6024748/2025
- Decision date
- 26 June 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Williams REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr C Smith
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr C Smith did not attend the video hearing at Cardiff on 26 June 2026. The Department for Work and Pensions was represented by Mr Peto, counsel. Employment Judge Williams struck out Mr Smith's claims of unfair dismissal, disability discrimination, and detriment on grounds of trade union activities.
Each claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c) because Mr Smith had not complied with the Tribunal Rules or a Tribunal order, and under Rule 38(1)(d) because the claim had not been actively pursued. The judgment records no monetary award or other remedy.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules 38(1)(c) and 38(1)(d) for failure to comply with the Tribunal Rules or an order and failure to actively pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules 38(1)(c) and 38(1)(d) for failure to comply with the Tribunal Rules or an order and failure to actively pursue the claim. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Trade union | The claim of detriment on grounds of trade union activities was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rules 38(1)(c) and 38(1)(d) for failure to comply with the Tribunal Rules or an order and failure to actively pursue the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(1)(c)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 38(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.