Case 1602280/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J Logan v ISS Facility Services Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 1602280/2023
- Decision date
- 5 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Macdonald Representation
- Venue
- Cardiff
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J Logan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Claimant brought insufficiently particularised claims, with the ET1 indicating unfair dismissal, sexual orientation discrimination, and discrimination on the ground of gender reassignment. The Respondent resisted the complaints.
The Claimant did not attend an earlier preliminary hearing on 5 January 2024 and was warned that a second failure to participate could lead to dismissal. He did not provide the further information ordered by the Tribunal, and before the 19 February 2024 hearing he sent emails indicating that he would not attend.
The Tribunal considered the available information about the Claimant's absence, waited until 10.30 a.m., and was satisfied that reasonable enquiries had been made. It found that the Claimant had deliberately chosen not to attend and that dismissal under Rule 47 was proportionate in light of delay, cost, and allocation of resources.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal did not adjudicate the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Sexual orientation discrimination | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal did not adjudicate the merits. | Dismissed | Sexual orientation | — |
| Gender reassignment discrimination | The claim was dismissed under Rule 47 because the Claimant did not attend the hearing; the tribunal did not adjudicate the merits. | Dismissed | Gender reassignment | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective in Rule 2
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.