Case 1402866/2021 · Employment Tribunal
No Appearance v Mr N. Henry, Consultant PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2022
- Case reference
- 1402866/2021
- Decision date
- 27 September 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Smail Appearances
- Venue
- Exeter
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No Appearance
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing on 23 September 2022. The tribunal recorded that the hearing had first been listed in case management orders dated 7 July 2022, so the claimant had known of the listing since then. The day before the hearing the claimant emailed saying he had a medical appointment and could not attend, but the nature of that appointment was not disclosed.
The tribunal made no order on the claimant's application to amend the claim to add unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal. It stated that those claims had therefore not been added to the claim, and that it would be for the claimant to renew the application if he wished. The tribunal also noted that any renewed application would require a good explanation for the non-attendance at the hearing.
The full merits hearing remained listed for 30 and 31 January and 1 February 2023. The tribunal recorded that the other case management orders made on 7 July 2022 continued to have effect.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment records that the claimant sought to amend the claim to add unfair dismissal and discriminatory dismissal, but the tribunal made no order on that application and said those claims had therefore not been added. The tribunal did not adjudicate the merits of any substantive claim at this hearing. | Other | — | — |
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.