Case 1302210/2025 · Employment Tribunal
no appearance v Miss I Terziyska, Legal Executive — 2026
- Case reference
- 1302210/2025
- Decision date
- 19 March 2026
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robin Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
no appearance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the audio hearing on 19 March 2026 and could not be contacted by telephone. The tribunal recorded that he remained employed by the second respondent and had previously indicated that he wished to withdraw because free legal advice or representation was unavailable.
The claimant had not responded to earlier directions seeking information about the nature of his claims, the correct respondent, and details and evidence of his alleged disabilities. There had been no communication from him since 20 November 2025, and the respondent had live applications for strike out and costs.
The tribunal concluded that, in all the circumstances, it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claims for non-attendance under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims for non-attendance under rule 47. It refers to directions seeking details and evidence of the claimant's various alleged disabilities, but does not set out the substantive discrimination allegations. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The gov.uk listing category identifies an unlawful deduction from wages claim. The judgment itself does not describe this claim separately, but states that the claimant's claims are dismissed. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2024
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.