Case 2302305/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Ms O Kay v Park Avenue Healthcare Limited — 2024
- Case reference
- 2302305/2022
- Decision date
- 7 May 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Evans
- Panel members
- Mr Corkerton, Mr Rogers
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms O Kay
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe hearing took place on 7 May 2024 by video before Employment Judge Evans, with Mr Corkerton and Mr Rogers sitting as lay members. The claimant, Ms O Kay, did not attend and was not represented. The respondent, Park Avenue Healthcare Limited, was represented by Mr Brown of Counsel.
The Tribunal's unanimous judgment was that the claim was dismissed under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 because of the claimant's failure to attend the hearing. The judgment records this as the primary basis for disposal and does not make findings on the merits of any underlying substantive complaint.
In the alternative, the Tribunal stated that the claim was struck out under Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(b) on the basis that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted was unreasonable. It also said the claim was struck out under Rule 37(1)(c) because the claimant had not complied with a Tribunal order.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the underlying substantive causes of action. It records only that the claimant's claim was dismissed under Employment Tribunal Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the hearing. In the alternative, the Tribunal said the claim would be struck out under Rule 37(1)(b) and Rule 37(1)(c). | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Employment Tribunal Rule 47
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(b)
- Employment Tribunal Rule 37(1)(c)
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.