Case 1601509/2022 · Employment Tribunal
NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE v Ms Scully (solicitor) — 2023
- Case reference
- 1601509/2022
- Decision date
- 31 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
NO ATTENDANCE FOR THE
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard by video on 26 May 2023 before Employment Judge S Povey sitting alone. The claimant did not attend; the respondent was represented by Ms Scully, solicitor.
The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to determine the claims of unfair dismissal and redundancy payment. It also recorded that those claims had no reasonable prospects of success.
Both claims were therefore struck out pursuant to Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the unfair dismissal claim and said it had no reasonable prospects of success, so it was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
| Redundancy | The Tribunal held it did not have jurisdiction to determine the redundancy payment claim and said it had no reasonable prospects of success, so it was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.