Case 1803003/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D Howden v DN Colleges Group HELD in Sheffield — 2022
- Case reference
- 1803003/2021
- Decision date
- 29 March 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Brain REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D Howden
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningAt the preliminary hearing on 29 March 2022 before Employment Judge Brain, the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The tribunal recorded that she had also failed to attend or be represented at the case management hearing on 25 November 2021, had failed to comply with paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 of the order made on that date, and had not complied with the directions repeated in the tribunal's letter of 7 February 2022, which warned of the consequences of non-compliance.
The tribunal also recorded that the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the hearing on 29 March 2022. It made enquiries about the reasons for her absence and considered all the information available before giving judgment.
The tribunal held that it could not be said that the claimant's claims had no reasonable prospect of success, so it did not strike them out under rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013. It nevertheless struck the claims out under rule 37(1)(c) for non-compliance with the tribunal's orders and under rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The extracted judgment does not identify the underlying pleadings in detail; the case was listed as disability discrimination and the claims were struck out under rule 37(1)(c) and rule 37(1)(d). | Struck out | Disability | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 37(1)(a) of Schedule 1 to the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
- rule 37(1)(c)
- rule 37(1)(d)
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.