Case 1404979/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend and was not represented For the v NHS West Sussex CCG — 2021
- Case reference
- 1404979/2019
- Decision date
- 15 January 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Emerton
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend and was not represented For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was presented on 28 October 2019 and included unfair dismissal, race discrimination, disability discrimination, and money claims for notice, holiday, arrears of pay and other payments. At the February 2020 case management hearing the tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was no longer being pursued because the claimant had been reinstated, but the case was still listed for a final hearing after further case management.
The tribunal recorded repeated directions about disclosure, witness statements and the list of issues, including orders after the 10 July 2020 telephone case management hearing and further directions at the 30 November 2020 hearing. The claimant did not attend those hearings, did not serve the required materials by the directed dates, and on 14 and 15 January 2021 emailed the tribunal about reasonable adjustments and technical problems but did not apply to postpone the hearing. No medical evidence was submitted to support the non-attendance.
At the 15 January 2021 hearing the Employment Judge proceeded in the claimant's absence under Rule 47. The tribunal found continuous non-compliance since February 2020, prejudice to the respondent, and that the issues remained too unclear for a fair hearing to be possible. It also found that no lesser sanction would be appropriate and struck out the claim under Rule 37(1)(c), (d) and (e). No merits findings or monetary award were made.
Claims and outcomes
7 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim form included unfair dismissal. At the February 2020 case management hearing the tribunal recorded that the unfair dismissal complaint was no longer being pursued because the claimant had been reinstated, but the proceedings were later struck out as a whole under Rules 37(1)(c), (d) and (e). | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records a race discrimination claim and strikes the claim out under Rules 37(1)(c), (d) and (e). No merits findings were made. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Disability discrimination | The judgment records a disability discrimination claim and strikes the claim out under Rules 37(1)(c), (d) and (e). No merits findings were made. | Struck out | Disability | — |
| Breach of contract | The judgment refers to a money claim for 'notice' but does not further particularise the legal basis. It was struck out with the rest of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Holiday pay | The judgment refers to a money claim for 'holiday' and does not separate it from the other money claims. It was struck out with the rest of the claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The judgment refers to a money claim for 'arrears of pay' and does not quantify it separately. It was struck out with the rest of the claim. |
Legal tests applied
4 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(c) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(d) of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- Rule 37(1)(e) of the Employment Tribunal 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.