Case 2210737/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Tehrani v DAC Beachcroft Services Ltd — 2023
- Case reference
- 2210737/2022
- Decision date
- 10 May 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Tehrani
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was heard at London Central by CVP on 10 May 2023 before Judge Cowx sitting alone. The claimant, Mrs A Tehrani, did not attend the case management hearing and did not provide any reason for her absence. The tribunal recorded that all reasonable and practicable enquiries were made to determine why she was absent, and none were discovered.
In accordance with Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013, the tribunal dismissed all claims presented in the claim form dated 6 December 2022. The claims identified in the judgment were disability discrimination, unfair dismissal, and non-payment of notice pay and other payments. No remedy was awarded because the claims were dismissed without determination on the merits.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and gave no reasons for her absence. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing and gave no reasons for her absence. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The judgment refers to 'non-payment of notice pay and other payments' without separating the claim into breach of contract or unlawful deduction from wages heads; it was dismissed under Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend and no reason for absence was found. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
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.