Case 1800421/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A St. Ange v Lookers plc AT A PUBLIC PRELIMINARY HEARING — 2024
- Case reference
- 1800421/2024
- Decision date
- 19 December 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Lancaster Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A St. Ange
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the public preliminary hearing at Leeds on 19 December 2024 and had not contacted the tribunal. The tribunal noted that the claimant had recently communicated with the respondent's solicitors and had acknowledged receipt of the hearing bundle on 17 December 2024.
Employment Judge Lancaster recorded that this was the second occasion on which the claimant had failed to attend a hearing, and that she had not complied with earlier case management orders despite warning of the possible consequences. The judge dismissed the claim under Rule 47.
After dismissal, the tribunal was told that the claimant said she had believed the hearing would be by video. The judge recorded that the case management order and notice of hearing had made clear the hearing was to be attended in person at Leeds, and that no application had been made to convert it to a video hearing.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies disability discrimination, but the judgment gives only a Rule 47 dismissal of the claim at a preliminary hearing and does not set out merits findings. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Race discrimination | The gov.uk listing category identifies race discrimination, but the judgment gives only a Rule 47 dismissal of the claim at a preliminary hearing and does not set out merits findings. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The gov.uk listing category identifies unfair dismissal, but the judgment gives only a Rule 47 dismissal of the claim at a preliminary hearing and does not set out merits findings. | 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.