Case 2300275/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss D French v TJ Morris Limited — 2019
- Case reference
- 2300275/2019
- Decision date
- 28 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Corrigan Ashford
- Venue
- Ashford
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss D French
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the hearing. The tribunal clerk contacted her and she said she would not attend because she had had concussion and still had a headache and dizziness. The clerk then called again to ask whether she was requesting an adjournment, but the call went to answerphone and she did not call back, so there was no application to adjourn.
The tribunal also noted that the claimant had not complied with the case management orders made on 30 May 2019 and had had no contact with either the respondent or the tribunal. The respondent had been chasing compliance with the order and the claimant had not responded. In those circumstances, the tribunal concluded that the claimant had failed to attend in the context of not actively pursuing the claim and dismissed the claim under Rule 47 rather than hearing it in her absence.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and does not set out any merits findings. The underlying claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment dismisses the claimant's claim under Rule 47 for non-attendance and does not set out any merits findings. The underlying claim type is inferred from the case listing. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.