Case 2302390/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v London General Transport (Go Ahead London Ltd) — 2021
- Case reference
- 2302390/2020
- Decision date
- 6 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Cheetham QC
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was an Open Preliminary Hearing on 6 July 2021 in a case brought on 16 June 2020 and arising from the claimant's employment between 1 November 2015 and 13 February 2020. The tribunal had listed the matter because it was brought out of time. The claimant did not attend, sent no message explaining his absence, and had not prepared the requested agenda. The respondent's counsel said there had been no recent contact from the claimant.
Employment Judge Cheetham QC concluded that the claimant was no longer actively pursuing the claim, perhaps because he had realised the limitation issues he faced. The judgment dismissed the claim, but the dismissal was not to take effect until 3 August 2021 so that the claimant could make written representations. The judge noted that, if absence was due to a medical reason, supporting medical evidence would be needed.
The respondent applied for costs on the basis that the claimant had behaved unreasonably by not attending a hearing of which he had been notified the previous November. The respondent sought recovery of counsel's brief fee of £1,250. The judge agreed that it was unreasonable for the claimant to do nothing, as this wasted the respondent's time and money and the tribunal's resources, and indicated that a costs order was being considered in the provisional sum of £1,250 subject to representations and evidence of the claimant's means.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment does not identify the substantive causes of action in the extracted text. The claim was dismissed at an Open Preliminary Hearing because the claimant did not attend, had not prepared an agenda as requested, and the judge inferred he was no longer actively pursuing the case, which had been listed as out of time. | 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.