Case 2210617/2022 · Employment Tribunal

Not present or represented For the v Respondent — 2024

Case reference: 2210617/2022
Decision date: 11 March 2024
Jurisdiction: England & Wales
Judge: Employment Judge P Klimov

Indexed: 21 May 2026

Parties

1 named

Claimant

Not present or represented For the

Respondent

Key findings

Tribunal's reasoning

The claimant presented her claim on 30 November 2022. After a case management hearing on 7 August 2023, she was ordered to provide medical evidence of the alleged disability and to disclose documents, but she did not comply. The respondent repeatedly chased compliance and applied for case management relief, including an unless order.

Further directions were made in December 2023 and January 2024, but the claimant still did not provide the required material or adequate explanations. The final hearing was vacated and the first day was converted into a 3-hour case management hearing on 27 February 2024. On the morning of the hearing the claimant emailed to say she was at the airport about to board a flight for a family trip abroad for her birthday, and she did not join the video hearing despite being warned that her claim was likely to be dismissed if she failed to attend.

Employment Judge Klimov found the claimant's explanations for the repeated non-compliance wholly unpersuasive and concluded that it was impossible to progress the case without her attendance and engagement. He also decided that it would be disproportionate to list a further hearing or make fresh case management orders. Because the hearing was listed in private as a case management hearing, strike-out under Rule 37 was not available at that hearing; instead, the Tribunal exercised its power under Rule 47 of the 2013 Rules and dismissed the claim for non-attendance. The respondent indicated that it would pursue costs separately under Rule 77.

Claims and outcomes

1 finding recorded

Claim type	Issue or finding	Outcome	Protected characteristic	Award
Disability discrimination	The judgment did not set out the pleaded cause(s) of action in detail. The disability-discrimination classification is inferred from the gov.uk listing and the tribunal's references to the claimant's alleged disability and medical evidence. The claim was not determined on the merits; it was dismissed for non-attendance under Rule 47.	Dismissed	Disability	—

Legal tests applied

4 references

Official outcome judgment PDF

Gov.uk primary record

The 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.