Case 1302155/2017 · Employment Tribunal

No attendance For the v Mr Crowe, Solicitor — 2018

Case reference: 1302155/2017
Decision date: 22 October 2018
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge Harding Dated

Indexed: 23 May 2026

Parties

2 named

Claimant

No attendance For the

Respondent

Mr Crowe, Solicitor

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The case was heard at Birmingham on 22 October 2018 before Employment Judge Harding. The claimant did not attend the hearing. The respondent was represented by Mr Crowe, solicitor.

Having considered the information available, the tribunal dismissed the claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 because the claimant failed to attend. The written record also notes that written reasons would not be provided unless requested at the hearing itself or in writing within 14 days of the sending of the written record of the decision.

Claims and outcomes

3 findings recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Breach of contract	The judgment text does not itemise the individual claims; this claim type follows the gov.uk case listing categories. The written record states that 'the claims' were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend.	Dismissed	—	—
Race discrimination	The judgment text does not itemise the individual claims; this claim type follows the gov.uk case listing categories. The written record states that 'the claims' were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend.	Dismissed	Race	—
Unfair dismissal	The judgment text does not itemise the individual claims; this claim type follows the gov.uk case listing categories. The written record states that 'the claims' were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend.	Dismissed	—	—

Legal tests applied

1 reference

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.