Mr J Sivak v SAYO Recruitment Ltd and Panel UK Ltd: 1804575/2023
JUDGMENT
[1]All claims against the first respondent are struck out. Employment Judge Rostant 4 December 2023 Case Number: 1804575/2023 PHCM Order (NEW August 2020) 1 of 1 August 2020 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr J Sivak Respondent 1: SAYO Recruitment Limited Respondent 2: Panel UK Ltd Heard at: Sheffield, in public by CVP On: 1 December 2023 Before: Employment Judge Rostant Appearances For the claimant: In person For respondent 1: Mr E Stenson of counsel For respondent 2: Mr D Smith of counsel[1]All claims of harassment are struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.[2]The claims of direct discrimination numbered 31. 2 and 31.5 are struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.[3]For the avoidance of doubt claimant numbered 31.7 is neither struck out nor the subject of a deposit Order. Employment Judge Rostant 4 December 2023 Case No: 1804575/2023 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimants: Mr J Sivak Respondent: Panel UK Limited Heard at: Leeds (in public; by CVP) On: 1 May 2024 Before: Employment Judge Deeley Appearances For the claimant: did not attend For the respondent: Mr Danny Smith (Counsel) JUDGMENT – (1) NON-PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT ORDER AND RESPONDENT’S STRIKE OUT APPLICAITON Judgment – non-payment of the deposit order[1]The claimant failed to pay the deposit order issued by Employment Judge Rostant and sent to the claimant on 6 February 2024. The complaints identified by Judge Rostant at paragraphs 31.1, 31.3, 31.4, 31.6, 31.8, 31.9 and 31.10 of his December Case Management Orders are therefore struck out under Rule 39(4) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure. Judgment on respondent’s strike out application[2]The respondent’s application to strike out of the claimant’s claim under Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure (failure to actively pursue the claim) is granted. The claimant’s remaining complaint of direct race discrimination (identified by Employment Judge Rostant as paragraph 31.7 of his December Case Management Orders) is struck out for the reasons explained at today’s hearing. NOTES[3]The claimant did not attend today’s hearing or comment on the respondent’s strike out application. The claimant had not provided a telephone number to the Tribunal and the clerk emailed him, asking him to join the hearing by 2.30pm. The claimant did not respond to the email. The Case No: 1804575/2023 10.2 Judgment - rule 61 February 2018 respondent stated that they had not had any contact from the claimant since the last preliminary hearing in December 2023.