Case 8000010/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mr D Adams v British Gas Trading Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 8000010/2022
- Decision date
- 18 September 2023
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge M Whitcombe
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr D Adams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that there had been little significant progress towards a final hearing since the claim began on 1 August 2022. It noted that the claimant's health had played a part and that deadlines had been set, extended and reset, with correspondence also sent to the claimant's former partner to help ensure deadlines were not missed.
The claimant provided some material, including a psychiatrist's report and an impact statement on disability, but did not comply with all outstanding orders. At a preliminary hearing on 15 September 2023, the claimant told Employment Judge Strain that his health no longer prevented compliance, and new deadlines were set. Those deadlines were not met despite warnings about possible consequences.
After further warnings and an opportunity for the claimant to give written reasons or request a hearing on strike out, no reply was received. Employment Judge Whitcombe found that the failure to comply with orders made a fair hearing impossible and that the claim was not actively pursued, and struck out the claim under rule 37.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37. The unfair dismissal classification comes from the listing category/context; the judgment text itself does not set out the merits or detailed particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment refers to directions about the issue of disability and struck out the claim under rule 37. It does not determine whether the claimant was disabled or address the discrimination merits. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment struck out the claim under rule 37. The breach of contract classification comes from the listing category/context; the judgment text itself does not set out the merits or detailed particulars of this claim. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
- overriding objective
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.