Case 2218581/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms de Rada v Sweetings (City) Limited and 2 others — 2024
- Case reference
- 2218581/2024
- Decision date
- 14 November 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge E Burns Representation
Parties
4 namedClaimant
Ms de Rada
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant presented a claim on 17 April 2024 after an early conciliation period that started and ended on 18 March 2024. The claim form referred to unfair dismissal and unspecified 'other payments' against Sweetings (City) Limited, Sue Knowler and Beata Zelinga. The tribunal recorded that Sweetings (City) Limited was the employer, Ms Knowler owned the company, and Ms Zelinga was a manager at the restaurant. It also noted that the claimant had more than two years' service and was therefore entitled to pursue an unfair dismissal claim against the employer.
A preliminary hearing was listed to deal with whether the claims against the second and third respondents should be struck out, any application to amend the claim, clarification of the list of issues, and case management. The claimant was directed to identify exactly what she was claiming in relation to 'other payments' and to apply in writing if she wished to add any new claim. She did not respond to that direction.
The claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal telephoned and emailed her before the hearing and delayed the start by 30 minutes to give her an opportunity to respond, but she did not do so. The tribunal dismissed the unfair dismissal claim as against the second and third respondents because such a claim can only be brought against the employer, and it dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024 because the claimant failed to attend. The judgment also records that, if the claimant has an explanation for non-compliance or non-attendance, she may apply to have the judgment revoked under Rule 69 within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | The tribunal held that an unfair dismissal claim could only be brought against the employer, Sweetings (City) Limited, not against the second or third respondents. It also dismissed the claim because the claimant failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Other | The claim form also referred to unspecified 'other payments'. The claimant did not identify the basis or amount of those claims and did not comply with the tribunal's direction to clarify or amend them. The tribunal dismissed the remaining claims under Rule 47 because she failed to attend the hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
- Rule 69 of the Employment Tribunal Procedure Rules 2024
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.