Case 2203813/2022 · Employment Tribunal
No attendance or v Respondent — 2023
- Case reference
- 2203813/2022
- Decision date
- 18 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Baty Representation
Parties
1 namedClaimant
No attendance or
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing before Employment Judge Baty on 18 May 2023, at which the claimant did not attend and was not represented. The respondent was represented by Mr M Lee, counsel. The tribunal did not decide the underlying merits of the pleaded claims.
The tribunal struck out the claim because the claimant had not complied with orders, was not actively pursuing the claim, was conducting the claim unreasonably, and it was no longer possible to have a fair hearing because the claimant could not or would not engage. The final hearing listed for 15 to 28 November 2023 was vacated and will not take place.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The preliminary hearing judgment struck out the claim as a whole and did not make a separate merits finding on the contract claim. | Struck out | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole and did not determine the race discrimination allegations on their merits. | Struck out | Race | — |
| Sex discrimination | The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole and did not determine the sex discrimination allegations on their merits. | Struck out | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal struck out the claim as a whole and did not determine the unfair dismissal allegation on its merits. | Struck out | — | — |
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.