Case 2303209/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Mr J R Joseph v London General Transport Services Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2303209/2023
- Decision date
- 14 March 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Fowell At
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr J R Joseph
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningTwo claim forms had been submitted by or on behalf of the claimant. The response forms stated that the claimant was dismissed after it was discovered that his right to live and work in the UK had expired. The claim forms alleged that this was a cloak for dismissal on other grounds, namely making a protected disclosure or race discrimination.
Neither the claimant nor any representative attended the video hearing. The tribunal attempted to contact them using the numbers provided on the claim forms, waited until 10.30, and received no response. Counsel for the respondent said the respondent had been told the claims had been withdrawn, although the tribunal had no record of a withdrawal.
Applying rule 47, the tribunal considered the available information about the claimant's absence and concluded that the claim appeared not to be pursued. The claims were dismissed in their entirety.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Whistleblowing | The judgment records that the claim forms alleged dismissal for making a protected disclosure. The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant and any representative failed to attend and the tribunal concluded the claim was not pursued. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Race discrimination | The judgment records that the claim forms alleged race discrimination. The claims were dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant and any representative failed to attend and the tribunal concluded the claim was not pursued. | Dismissed | Race | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 47 Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure
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.