Case 1805691/2020 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance For the v Mr S Dad (solicitor) — 2020
- Case reference
- 1805691/2020
- Decision date
- 3 December 2020
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge JM Wade
Parties
2 namedClaimant
No attendance For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing by telephone on 3 December 2020 before Employment Judge JM Wade. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent attended through Mr S Dad, solicitor. The judgment records that the claimant had been sent notice of the hearing and that the tribunal attempted to contact him by telephone after he failed to join, but there was no answer. The hearing was then reconvened later the same day and there was still no attendance.
The tribunal listed the complaints as protected disclosure dismissal, protected disclosure detriment, unfair dismissal, discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief, race discrimination, harassment, victimisation and other payments. Having read the claim and response, the judge noted that the claimant had pleaded few or no facts from which the tribunal could conclude that race or religion played any part in the events relied upon. The reasons also record the respondent's case that the claimant had been dismissed around 4 June 2020 following an allegation that he had said, in February 2020, "that fucking monkey is useless" about a colleague, which the respondent treated as racially aggravated.
The judge considered several procedural options, including a strike out warning, an unless order, a postponement, deposit orders, or dismissal under Rule 47. The tribunal concluded that the claimant had had a reasonable opportunity to attend and be heard. It considered it more likely that he had chosen not to attend than that unforeseen misfortune had prevented him from doing so. Taking into account the cost to the respondent, the seriousness and stigma of the allegations, and the need to avoid wasting tribunal time, the tribunal dismissed the claims in the interests of justice.
The judgment notes that if misfortune had prevented attendance, the claimant could challenge the decision, which moderated the prejudice to him. No merits findings were made on the substantive complaints and no monetary remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
8 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | Complaint described in the judgment as protected disclosure dismissal. Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Whistleblowing | Complaint described in the judgment as protected disclosure detriment. Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Harassment | Dismissed under Rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend or be represented at the preliminary hearing. The judgment did not separately identify the protected characteristic attached to this complaint. | 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.