Case 2302829/2018 · Employment Tribunal
Did not appear For the v Respondent — 2019
- Case reference
- 2302829/2018
- Decision date
- 18 September 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hyams-Parish Members
- Venue
- London South
- Panel members
- Ms J King, Mr W Dixon
Parties
1 namedClaimant
Did not appear For the
Respondent
- —
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal considered and refused the claimant's application to postpone the hearing, then proceeded in the claimant's absence. It heard the respondent's case on 18 September 2019 before Employment Judge Hyams-Parish sitting with lay members Ms J King and Mr W Dixon.
The only substantive claim recorded in the written judgment was disability discrimination under section 15 of the Equality Act 2010. The tribunal held that the claim was not well founded and dismissed it.
The written record does not set out detailed reasons for the dismissal, because reasons were given orally at the hearing. The tribunal also noted that any application for costs should be made in writing and could be dealt with on paper or at a further hearing.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disability discrimination | Claim brought under s.15 Equality Act 2010. The written record states it was not well founded and dismissed; no substantive reasons are included in the record. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.