Case 1800026/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Aderonke Adeniji v LIngwell Croft Surgery — 2020
- Case reference
- 1800026/2020
- Decision date
- 6 March 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Aderonke Adeniji
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at Leeds on 6 March 2020 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The claimant, Aderonke Adeniji, did not attend at the listed start time. The clerk telephoned her and recorded that she had thought the hearing was at 2pm, had received the second notice of hearing, and said she could arrive by taxi in about 15 minutes. The tribunal delayed the start and made further contact attempts, including a call to a person who said he was not on the record and had been due to represent the claimant.
The judgment records that a prior Rule 26 review had been carried out to consider whether the unfair dismissal complaint should be struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service. The judge also recorded that the short particulars suggested further complaints of constructive wrongful dismissal and direct race and sex discrimination or harassment on those grounds, but said the details were insufficient and that limitation was a clear issue.
When the hearing began at 10.50am, with no attendance or representation for the claimant, the respondent applied under Rule 47. The tribunal considered adjournment, proceeding in the claimant's absence, and immediate dismissal, and concluded that the balance of prejudice lay against the claimant. It dismissed the claimant's complaints under Rule 47 without determining their merits, and no remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend or be represented at the hearing. The judgment records that a prior Rule 26 review had considered whether this complaint should be struck out because the claimant did not have two years' service. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Wrongful dismissal | The reasons refer to a possible constructive wrongful dismissal complaint among the further complaints identified at the Rule 26 review. It was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance and was not determined on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The reasons refer to possible direct race discrimination or harassment on race grounds among the further complaints identified at the Rule 26 review. It was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance and was not determined on the merits. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The reasons refer to possible direct sex discrimination or harassment on sex grounds among the further complaints identified at the Rule 26 review. It was dismissed under Rule 47 for non-attendance and was not determined on the merits. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 26 review
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.