Case 1303456/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs R Kaur v David Lloyd Leisure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303456/2022
- Decision date
- 25 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Edmonds Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs R Kaur
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the remote hearing and had not given advance notice or any reason for her absence. The Tribunal attempted to contact her by telephone and email, explaining that she should attend by 10.30am or explain any reason for non-attendance and apply for a postponement.
Employment Judge Edmonds reviewed the file and noted that the claimant had not responded to three Tribunal requests for information and that the respondent had received no communication from her since the claim form. The Judge concluded that the claimant did not appear to be actively pursuing the claim.
The Tribunal also found that the claim appeared on its face to be out of time. Because the claimant had provided no explanation, she could not satisfy the Tribunal that it had not been reasonably practicable to present the claim within the time limit. Having regard to the overriding objective, including avoiding delay and saving expense, the Tribunal dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed at a preliminary hearing after the claimant did not attend and had provided no reason for non-attendance; the judgment also recorded that the claim appeared out of time and that no explanation had been provided to satisfy the not reasonably practicable test. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47 of the ET Rules
- Overriding Objective at Rule 2 of the ET Rules
- not reasonably practicable
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.