Case 1402810/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Nisha Kausal nee Sharma v Teoxane UK Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 1402810/2021
- Decision date
- 14 April 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge G. King Members
- Venue
- Bristol ET
- Panel members
- G. Mayo, H. Launder
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Nisha Kausal nee Sharma
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed for a final hearing on 3 April 2023, with the parties expected to attend in person on 3, 4 and 5 April 2023. At 9:30 no party had attended, and calls were made to both sides without response. The respondent later attended after initially being directed to the wrong floor, but the claimant did not attend at any stage of the morning.
The respondent applied for the claim to be struck out on the basis that it was not being actively pursued, pointing to the claimant's non-attendance. The tribunal recorded that the last contact the respondent's representative had with the claimant was an email exchange in the week before the hearing, in which the claimant replied words to the effect of "see you there".
The tribunal was satisfied that the claimant knew of the final hearing and that all reasonable attempts to contact her and ascertain the reason for her absence had been exhausted. It was also satisfied that the claim was not being actively pursued, given the claimant's failure to attend the final hearing. The claim was therefore struck out.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying pleaded claims in the strike-out decision; it records only that the claimant's claim was struck out because it was not being actively pursued. | Struck out | — | — |
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.