Case 1600889/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Abel v CL Davies Leisure Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 1600889/2023
- Decision date
- 1 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Havard Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff via CVP
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Abel
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a short case management judgment rather than a merits decision. The Claimant, Ms M Abel, did not attend the hearing on 30 October 2023. The Tribunal noted that she had not complied with the earlier directions, including failing to provide a witness statement and a schedule of loss.
The Claimant sent an email on 14 October 2023 referring to a claim for loss of earnings and holiday pay, but she did not provide amounts or the basis of those claims. She also said she was due to go into hospital for back surgery, and attached a hospital letter showing an outpatient appointment on 3 November 2023, together with an earlier part-letter dated 10 July 2023. The Tribunal found that this material did not show that she was unable to attend the hearing, which was listed by video.
On the morning of the hearing, the Respondent attended with two witnesses. The Tribunal telephoned the Claimant; she said she was unable to attend because she had a GP appointment regarding her back condition and then ended the call. Further attempts to contact her to obtain a GP document confirming inability to attend were unsuccessful.
In the absence of evidence that the Claimant could not attend, Employment Judge Havard decided that it was proportionate and consistent with the overriding objective to dismiss the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 after the Claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.