Case 1305110/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance v Mr. Jagpal, representative — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305110/2021
- Decision date
- 13 December 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Wedderspoon Representation
- Venue
- Birmingham
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningBy a claim form dated 10 December 2021, Ms Rahima K Ali brought complaints of race discrimination, disability discrimination, public interest disclosure detriment, and claims for other payments against Desired Care 4U Limited. The case was listed for a preliminary hearing in May 2022, postponed at the claimant's request, and then relisted for July 2022 before being postponed by the Tribunal. Notice of the final hearing was sent on 12 October 2022.
Ms Ali did not attend the hearing on 7 December 2022. The respondent's representative said he had not heard from her since summer 2022, and the Tribunal clerk's attempt to contact her by telephone went to voicemail. There was no communication from the claimant before the hearing to explain her non-attendance.
Employment Judge Wedderspoon recorded that, in the absence of any explanation, it was in the interests of justice to dismiss the claim pursuant to Rule 47 of the 2013 Rules. The judgment dismisses the claims as a whole and does not contain separate merits findings or any remedy award.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and gave no explanation; the tribunal did not reach the merits of the race discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and gave no explanation; the tribunal did not reach the merits of the disability discrimination complaint. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The claim form referred to public interest disclosure detriment. That complaint was dismissed under Rule 47 when the claimant failed to attend the hearing, so the tribunal did not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim form also referred to claims for other payments, but the judgment did not particularise them. Those claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the 2013 Rules
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.