Claimant v GEA Process Engineering Limited
Outcome
Individual claims
Struck out for non-pursuit under Rule 38(1)(d). The Claimant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence of 24 March 2025 asking him to confirm or deny the disability discrimination claim. The Tribunal noted there was no reference to such a claim in the grounds, and it appeared the box was ticked in error.
Not determined at this procedural stage. The Claimant's remaining claim (which includes reference to victimisation and comments about being a carer for a disabled son) remains listed for hearing on 25 June 2025.
Facts
Mr Lear brought claims against GEA Process Engineering Limited, including a disability discrimination claim. He also referred in his grounds to victimisation and comments about being a carer for a disabled son, but made no reference to disability discrimination in the grounds. On 24 March 2025, Employment Judge Rayner wrote to the Claimant asking him to confirm or deny the disability discrimination claim, noting it appeared the box may have been ticked in error. The Claimant did not respond within the 14-day deadline.
Decision
Employment Judge Woodhead struck out the disability discrimination claim under Rule 38(1)(d) for non-pursuit, as the Claimant failed to respond to the Tribunal's correspondence asking him to confirm or deny that claim. The Claimant's remaining claims remain listed for hearing on 25 June 2025.
Practical note
A claimant must respond to tribunal correspondence asking for clarification about claims brought; failure to do so may result in strike-out for non-pursuit under Rule 38(1)(d).
Legal authorities cited
Statutes
Case details
- Case number
- 6011535/2024
- Decision date
- 7 May 2025
- Hearing type
- strike out
- Hearing days
- —
- Classification
- procedural
Respondent
- Sector
- manufacturing
- Represented
- No
Claimant representation
- Represented
- No