Case 1404303/2021 · Employment Tribunal
- NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE v Respondent — 2024
- Case reference
- 1404303/2021
- Decision date
- 3 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hughes
- Panel members
- Ms L Simmonds, Ms S Maidment
Parties
1 namedClaimant
- NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claims were listed for a five-day final hearing beginning on 18 March 2024. The claimant did not attend and had still not provided a witness statement despite previous case management orders, extensions of time, and a strike-out warning.
The tribunal found that the failure to provide a witness statement was unreasonable conduct of the proceedings and significantly affected the ability to hold a fair hearing. It also found that the claimant was not actively pursuing the claims, including because she did not attend the hearing and appeared to indicate she would pursue matters elsewhere.
The tribunal struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(b) and rule 37(1)(d). It also dismissed the claims under Rule 47 in the alternative, and gave directions for the claimant to respond to the respondent's costs application for counsel's brief fee of £2,500.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(b) and/or 37(1)(d), with dismissal under Rule 47 given in the alternative following the claimant's non-attendance. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Sex discrimination | The judgment struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(b) and/or 37(1)(d), with dismissal under Rule 47 given in the alternative following the claimant's non-attendance. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Working time regulations | The judgment struck out the claims under rule 37(1)(b) and/or 37(1)(d), with dismissal under Rule 47 given in the alternative following the claimant's non-attendance. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
8 references- rule 37(1)(b)
- rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 47
- overriding objective
- Blockbuster Entertainment Ltd v James
- Emuemukuro v Croma Vigilant
- Smith v Tesco Stores
- Igen v Wong test
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.