Case 2300672/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Did not attend For the v Ms E Davies, HR Representative — 2024
- Case reference
- 2300672/2023
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Morton Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Did not attend For the
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe case was listed before Employment Judge Morton at London South on 29 April 2024. The claimant did not attend. The respondent attended by Ms E Davies, HR Representative.
The judgment states that all of the claimant's claims against the respondent were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) on the ground that they had not been actively pursued. No merits findings were made and no monetary award was recorded in the written decision. The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age discrimination | The judgment states that all of the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. The written record does not separately enumerate the claims, but the case listing identifies age discrimination as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | Age | — |
| Unfair dismissal | The judgment states that all of the claimant's claims were struck out under Rule 37(1)(d) because they had not been actively pursued. The written record does not separately enumerate the claims, but the case listing identifies unfair dismissal as one of the claim categories. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37(1)(d) 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.