Case 1307465/2020 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Executive Care Agency Midlands Ltd — 2021
- Case reference
- 1307465/2020
- Decision date
- 28 April 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lloyd Appearances
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt a preliminary hearing by telephone on 28 April 2021 before Employment Judge Lloyd, neither party attended or was represented. The tribunal recorded that no telephone contact details had been provided for the remote hearing, so the hearing could not be conducted with the parties' participation.
The claimant had not produced evidence to support the claims of automatically unfair dismissal, race discrimination, or disability discrimination. Pursuant to rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013, the judge struck out all of the claimant's claims and dismissed the proceedings in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claimant alleged automatically unfair dismissal. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 47 because neither party attended or was represented, no telephone contact details had been provided, and no evidence was produced to support the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The claimant alleged race discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and absence of evidence. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The claimant alleged disability discrimination. The tribunal struck out the claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and absence of evidence. | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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.