Case 2400381/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Miss L Escoffery v HC One Oval Care Homes — 2023
- Case reference
- 2400381/2022
- Decision date
- 21 February 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Ainscough
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss L Escoffery
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe tribunal recorded a single claim of unfair dismissal by Miss L Escoffery against HC One Oval Care Homes. Employment Judge Ainscough sat alone at Liverpool on 25 January 2023, with the respondent represented and the claimant not in attendance.
The judgment states that the unfair dismissal claim under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 was dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013 as a result of the claimant’s non-attendance at the preliminary hearing. No substantive findings on the merits of dismissal were made.
The written record also notes that reasons were given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested within 14 days. No monetary award was made.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under section 111 of the Employment Rights Act 1996 and Rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the preliminary hearing. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- section 111 Employment Rights Act 1996
- Rule 47 Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.