Case 1404300/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Serco Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1404300/2021
- Decision date
- 23 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Panel members
- Ms R Hewitt-Gray, Ms E Smillie
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal sat in chambers at Plymouth on 23 January 2023 before Employment Judge N J Roper and members Ms R Hewitt-Gray and Ms E Smillie. Neither the claimant nor the respondent attended.
The tribunal stated that it had considered all information made available to it. On the claimant's non-attendance, the unanimous judgment was that the claimant's claims were dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The judgment does not record any monetary remedy or any substantive determination of the merits of the claims.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims under Rule 47 due to non-attendance but does not set out the individual claims; classification follows the listing category/hint. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims under Rule 47 due to non-attendance but does not set out the individual claims; classification follows the listing category/hint. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claims under Rule 47 due to non-attendance but does not set out the individual claims; classification follows the listing category/hint. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Other | The listing category includes written statements, but the judgment does not give further detail about this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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.