Case 2207309/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Antonia Garcia Barrea v Misha Aikins — 2023
- Case reference
- 2207309/2023
- 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 record of a preliminary hearing at London Central on 24 July 2023, heard by Employment Judge Gidney by CVP. The claimant, Antonia Garcia Barrea, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, Misha Aikins, was represented by counsel. The tribunal recorded that it considered the information available to it and made practicable enquiries.
The tribunal dismissed the claimant’s unfair dismissal claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure because she failed to attend or be represented at the Case Management Hearing listed by the Notice of Hearing dated 19 May 2023. For the same reason, it dismissed the claims of discrimination on the grounds of race and religion or belief. The judgment states that reasons were given orally and that written reasons would only be provided if requested in writing within 14 days of the judgment being sent to the parties.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Race | — |
| Religion or belief discrimination | Recorded from the judgment. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 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.