Case 2401182/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss A Khan v TLB Medicals Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2401182/2023
- Decision date
- 26 April 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Slater REPRESENTATION
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss A Khan
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMiss A Khan’s claim against TLB Medicals Ltd was dismissed by Employment Judge Slater at a hearing in Manchester on 22 April 2024 because the claimant did not attend. The judgment records that the dismissal was made under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013.
The tribunal did not give substantive reasons on the merits of any underlying claim. The written record states that reasons had been given orally at the hearing and that written reasons would not be provided unless requested, but the judgment text supplied here contains only the procedural dismissal for non-attendance.
No remedy was awarded, and the judgment records no findings on liability, compensation, or any discrimination or whistleblowing issue. The decision was sent to the parties on 26 April 2024.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The claim was dismissed under rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013 because the claimant failed to attend the hearing. The judgment does not set out the underlying causes of action or determine them on the merits. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 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 The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.