Case 1806041/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend v Miss Das, legal executive — 2023
- Case reference
- 1806041/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cox Representation
- Venue
- Leeds
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal listed a telephone preliminary hearing for 21 February 2023, after the parties had been told in December 2022 that the hearing would take place, and after the hearing time was retimed to 2pm on 20 February 2023. The claimant telephoned the tribunal on the day of the hearing, less than two hours before it was due to begin, saying he had a dental appointment and needed it rescheduled, and then emailed: “Sorry I cannot make 2pm meeting please reschedule”.
Employment Judge Cox recorded that the claimant had more than two months' notice of the hearing and more than 24 hours' notice of the retimed start. The claimant gave no reason for why the hearing needed to be postponed and provided no evidence in support. The judge noted that if he had a dental appointment, he would have needed to explain why that could not be rescheduled rather than miss the hearing.
On that basis, the tribunal found that the claimant had shown no good reason for failing to attend. Exercising the power under Rule 47 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, and considering it appropriate to do so in all the circumstances, the tribunal dismissed the claim.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Part-time worker regulations | Dismissed under Rule 47 at a telephone preliminary hearing after the claimant did not attend and had sought a postponement shortly before the hearing without giving a reason or evidence. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure
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.