Case 1303077/2023 · Employment Tribunal
no appearance v Ms S Baig, solicitor — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303077/2023
- Decision date
- 3 October 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Robin Broughton
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
no appearance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by telephone at Birmingham on 3 October 2023 before Employment Judge Robin Broughton. The claimant did not appear, and the tribunal recorded no appearance for the claimant. The respondent was represented by Ms S Baig, solicitor.
The tribunal struck out the claimant’s claims. It relied on rule 47 because the claimant failed to attend or be contactable on the day of the hearing without reason, explanation or justification. It also relied on rule 37(1)(d) because the claimant had failed actively to pursue any remaining claims, including by not corresponding with the tribunal or the respondent since April 2023.
No merits findings were made and no remedy was awarded because the claims were struck out before substantive determination.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Struck out under rule 47 for failing to attend or be contactable on 3 October 2023 without reason, explanation or justification, and under rule 37(1)(d) for failing actively to pursue the remaining claims, including no correspondence with the tribunal or respondent since April 2023. | Struck out | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Struck out with the other claims on the same procedural grounds: non-attendance/non-contactability at the hearing and failure to actively pursue the claim, including no correspondence with the tribunal or respondent since April 2023. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.