Case 2300341/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Miss Katy Sams v 1st Alert/ Dave Oran — 2022
- Case reference
- 2300341/2019
- Decision date
- 16 May 2022
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ferguson Representation
- Venue
- London South
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss Katy Sams
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim of Miss Katy Sams against 1st Alert/Dave Oran was listed for final hearing by remote video on 12 July 2022 before Employment Judge Ferguson. Notice of the hearing and joining instructions had been sent to the parties in advance. Neither party attended by the scheduled start time, and the clerk attempted to contact the claimant by telephone and by email without success.
The tribunal recorded that both parties had also failed to attend a previous hearing and had not complied with tribunal orders seeking clarification of the matters in dispute. After a further order and request for clarification on 1 February 2022, the only communication from the claimant was a set of emails on 2 February 2022 in which she said she still wanted the case to be taken to court and asked for another hearing date.
The tribunal referred to rule 47, which allows dismissal or proceeding in absence where a party fails to attend, and rule 37, which permits strike out where a claim has not been actively pursued. In light of the claimant's non-attendance, the absence of any explanation, the failure to respond to contact attempts, and the earlier history of non-compliance, the tribunal decided that dismissal was appropriate.
The judgment records a single outcome: the claim was dismissed. No substantive findings on the merits of the underlying claim and no monetary award were recorded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The reasons do not identify the underlying substantive cause of action. The tribunal dismissed the claim after the claimant failed to attend the final hearing and had not actively pursued the case. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47
- Rule 37
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.