Case 2201406/2021 · Employment Tribunal
Representing himself For the v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2201406/2021
- Decision date
- 16 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty
- Panel members
- Ms S Dengate, Mr M Taj
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Representing himself For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal heard linked cases 2201406/2021 and 2201797/2022 at London Central on 9 to 16 May 2023. Employment Judge Baty sat with Ms S Dengate and Mr M Taj. The claimant represented himself and the respondent was represented by counsel.
The tribunal dismissed both claims under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013 because the claimant failed to attend on the sixth day of the hearing. It recorded that, if rule 47 had not applied, the claims would have been dismissed under rule 37(1)(b) because the claimant had conducted the proceedings unreasonably, and if not on that basis they would have been dismissed under rule 37(1)(a) because the complaints had no reasonable prospect of success. The record notes that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Race discrimination | Case number 2201406/2021; dismissed with the linked claim pursuant to rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend on the sixth day of the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Race discrimination | Case number 2201797/2022; dismissed with the linked claim pursuant to rule 47 after the claimant failed to attend on the sixth day of the hearing. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- rule 37(1)(b) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
- rule 37(1)(a) of the Employment Tribunal Rules 2013
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.