Case 2301576/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Julie Roach v Angelos KBB — 2025
- Case reference
- 2301576/2024
- Decision date
- 3 March 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Liz Ord
- Venue
- Croydon
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Julie Roach
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing for case management on 3 March 2025. The tribunal clerk telephoned her under the judge's instruction and tried to convince her to join the hearing.
The claimant said she thought the hearing had been postponed, referred to health issues and stress, and said she could not join without someone physically sitting with her. The judgment records that she had not provided evidence of health issues preventing participation, had not applied for a postponement, and the respondent did not agree to a postponement.
The judge considered whether there were exceptional circumstances to grant a postponement and concluded that there were none on the evidence before her. The claims were dismissed.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims are dismissed after she failed to attend the preliminary hearing; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims are dismissed after she failed to attend the preliminary hearing; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims are dismissed after she failed to attend the preliminary hearing; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Working time regulations | The short judgment states that the claimant's claims are dismissed after she failed to attend the preliminary hearing; it does not separately analyse this claim. | Dismissed | — | — |
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.