Case 1306434/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Kelly Gleeson v Shaw Trust Limited (The) and 2 others — 2025
- Case reference
- 1306434/2024
- Decision date
- 12 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Camp
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Miss Kelly Gleeson
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing on 12 March 2025. The Tribunal made enquiries about her absence, including attempting to contact her by telephone; an unidentified male answered the claimant's telephone before the call ended, and further attempts went to voicemail. The Tribunal identified no emails from the claimant.
The Tribunal also noted that the claimant had failed to attend the preliminary hearing on 29 November 2024 and had not provided an explanation for that non-attendance or complied with directions made at that hearing. The claims for unfair dismissal, disability discrimination and making a protected disclosure, as contained in the ET1 received on 6 July 2024, were dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Rules of Procedure 2024.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Rules of Procedure 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Rules of Procedure 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Whistleblowing | The judgment describes this as a claim for making a protected disclosure. It was dismissed pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Rules of Procedure 2024 after the claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Rules of Procedure 2024
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.