Case 2206303/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Antonia Garcia Barrea v Virgin Active Limited — 2023
- Case reference
- 2206303/2023
- Decision date
- 24 July 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Gidney Appearances
- Venue
- London Central
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Antonia Garcia Barrea
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing on 24 July 2023 before Employment Judge Gidney at London Central, with the Claimant not attending and the Respondent represented by counsel. The tribunal noted the information available to it and the enquiries that were practicable before giving judgment.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because the Claimant failed to attend or be represented at the Case Management Hearing listed by Notice of Hearing dated 19 May 2023. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because the Claimant failed to attend or be represented at the Case Management Hearing listed by Notice of Hearing dated 19 May 2023. The judgment described the discrimination claim as being on the grounds of race and religion or belief. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed pursuant to Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because the Claimant failed to attend or be represented at the Case Management Hearing listed by Notice of Hearing dated 19 May 2023. The judgment described the discrimination claim as being on the grounds of race and religion or belief. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals 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.