Mr D Nikev v Mackworth House School and Others: 2602676/2018
JUDGMENT
The complaint of discrimination relying on the protected characteristic of disabilty is dismissed following a withdrawal by the claimant. The Claimant’s remaining claims will proceed to hearing. _____________________________ Employment Judge Heap 10th July 2019__________________ JUDGMENT SENT TO THE PARTIES ON ........................................................................................ ........................................................................................ FOR THE TRIBUNAL OFFICE Case No 2602676/2018 Page 1 of 2 EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNALS Claimant: Mr D Nikev Respondent: Mackworth House School(1) St Michael’s Educational and Residential Services Ltd(2) St Michael’s Residential and Educational Services Ltd(3) Heard at: Leicester Hearing Centre, Kings Court, 5A New Walk, Leicester, LE1 6TE In private by telephone On: 23 February 2021 Before: Employment Judge Adkinson sitting alone Appearances For the claimant: Mr Patel, Counsel For the respondents: The respondents did not attend and were not represented. JUDGMENT ON WITHDRAWAL[1]All of the claimant’s claims against the first and second respondent are dismissed because the claimant has withdrawn them.[2]This does not affect any of the other claimant’s claims or any orders made in respect of them. They shall be heard and decided in the normal way. Employment Judge Adkinson Date: 23 February 2021[1]The whole of the third respondent’s response is struck out. The reasons for the strike out are as follows:[3]On 15 August 2020 Employment Judge Broughton informed the third respondent she was considering striking out their response on the grounds that they were not actively pursuing it. She invited the third respondent to explain in writing why their response should not be struck out.[4]The respondent did not reply to that correspondence.[5]The Tribunal therefore concludes, after considering the file, that response is not being actively pursued (Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure rule 37(1)(d)) and so should be struck out.[6]The effect is that the third respondent is to be treated as though they never presented a response to the claim.