Case 1305155/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss G Shore v Taylors Tots Nursery — 2022
- Case reference
- 1305155/2021
- Decision date
- 14 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Kelly
- Venue
- Midlands West
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss G Shore
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 13 September 2022. The tribunal noted that the case had previously been adjourned after the claimant failed to attend on 30 June 2022, and that an order of 30 June 2022 warned the parties that the claim might be struck out under rule 47 if she did not attend. No application to adjourn was received.
The tribunal called the claimant's contact number and received no reply. It also recorded that it had received no correspondence from the claimant since an email of 29 June 2022, and that the respondent had not had any contact from her to explain the absence. The respondent said it had sent documents to the claimant and had received a response that she could not open the file, but that no documents were sent back and there were no further communications.
Having considered rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 and the overriding objective, the tribunal decided that the claimant had acted unreasonably in failing to attend and that dismissal was proportionate in order to avoid delay and expense. The judgment states that the claimant's claim was dismissed on her non-attendance.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the individual causes of action; it dismisses the claimant's claim on non-attendance before any merits determination. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal 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.