Case 2209963/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss C Groseanu v Miss M Sota — 2023
- Case reference
- 2209963/2023
- Decision date
- 8 November 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge L Cowen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss C Groseanu
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss C Groseanu did not attend the final hearing listed for 20 October 2023. Employment Judge L Cowen recorded that tribunal staff made several attempts to contact her by telephone, that she had not provided an email address, and that the notice of hearing had been sent to her even though the joining details had not been sent.
The tribunal waited for some time to allow the claimant an opportunity to attend, contact the tribunal, or respond to its attempts to reach her. There was no contact from her, and the judge noted there was no information suggesting she had tried to contact the tribunal.
Having regard to the fact that it was for the claimant to establish her claim and to the overriding objective, the tribunal was satisfied that she was aware of the hearing and dismissed the claim under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The judgment does not decide the substantive merits of the claim.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing; the judgment does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing; the judgment does not determine the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.