Case 1303540/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mirela Dragomir v Bowshank Ltd, Ridgeway Court — 2023
- Case reference
- 1303540/2022
- Decision date
- 14 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mirela Dragomir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMirela Dragomir's claim against Bowshank Ltd, Ridgeway Court was listed for a private telephone hearing on 14 February 2023 before Employment Judge Kelly sitting alone. Neither party attended. The tribunal noted that notice of the hearing had been sent on 11 August 2022, that a reminder and attendance information were sent on 2 February 2023, and that the parties had been instructed to complete and return an agenda, but no agenda had been received.
The tribunal also recorded that there was no evidence on the file that the claimant had contacted the tribunal since her claim was issued. At the hearing time, the tribunal called the claimant twice, both calls went to voicemail, and it was not possible to leave a message. An email was then sent to both parties at 14.20 with joining details, but by 14.40 the claimant still had not joined the hearing.
Applying rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal considered whether to dismiss the claim, proceed in the claimant's absence, or adjourn. It decided that dismissal was proportionate in line with the overriding objective, because the claimant had acted unreasonably in failing to attend the hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records only a dismissal for non-attendance under rule 47 and does not identify the substantive pleaded claim(s). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.