Case 2201929/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms G Xhaferi 1st v RBC Europe Ltd 2nd Respondent: Mr E Jordanov At: Central London Employment Tribunal — 2025
- Case reference
- 2201929/2024
- Decision date
- 18 June 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Nicolle
- Panel members
- Ms Z Darmas, Mr R Baber
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms G Xhaferi 1st
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal, constituted by Employment Judge Nicolle with non-legal members Ms Z Darmas and Mr R Baber, dealt first with the claimant's applications relating to postponement. It refused the application for a variation, suspension or setting aside of the case management order dated 9 June 2025, holding under Rule 30(3) of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 that it was not in the interests of justice to alter that refusal and that the material circumstances had not changed.
The tribunal also refused a further application for postponement. The claimant did not attend the hearing, and after considering the information she had provided about her absence, the tribunal decided it was appropriate to dismiss the claim. The judgment records that oral reasons were given, that written reasons could be requested within 14 days, and that the claimant was advised she could apply for reconsideration of the dismissal under Rule 47 and Rule 69 after first requesting written reasons.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The tribunal refused the claimant's application for a variation, suspension or setting aside of the 9 June 2025 case management order refusing postponement, refused a further postponement application, and then dismissed the claim after the claimant did not attend the hearing. The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive causes of action. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 30(3) Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 47
- Rule 69
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.
- Open official judgment 1 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 2 PDF on gov.uk
- Open official judgment 3 PDF on gov.uk
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.