Case 2400777/2013 · Employment Tribunal
Mrs A Doran v Knowsley Metropolitan Borough Council — 2024
- Case reference
- 2400777/2013
- Decision date
- 3 January 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mrs A Doran
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMrs A Doran did not attend and was not represented at the final hearing on 22 December 2023. The tribunal recorded that the claim had been presented in 2013, that notice of the final hearing had been sent on 17 October 2023 to an email address previously used by the claimant, and that the respondent's solicitor had also emailed the claimant on 30 October 2023 referring to the hearing date and asking for comments on a draft list of issues.
After the claimant did not attend, the tribunal clerk telephoned her. The claimant said she had been unaware of the hearing, could not attend that day, and did want to pursue her claim. Employment Judge Horne concluded that the claimant had had a fair opportunity to come to the hearing because two emails had been sent to her with the hearing date.
The tribunal dismissed the claim under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013. It found that avoiding delay was particularly important because the claim was 10 years old, and that dismissal was proportionate because the claim could not fairly be determined on its merits without the claimant's attendance, including evidence about the difference between her terms and her comparator's terms. No remedy was awarded.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Equal pay | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 because the claimant did not attend the final hearing; the merits were not determined. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
2 references- Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013
- overriding objective
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.