Case 2404549/2019 · Employment Tribunal
Mr S Galloway v North West Boroughs Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust — 2019
- Case reference
- 2404549/2019
- Decision date
- 1 November 2019
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Aspinall Date
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr S Galloway
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningMr S Galloway did not attend the hearing on 10 October 2019. Before dismissing the case, the tribunal gave him an opportunity to make written representations or attend to explain why the claims should not be struck out on the basis that they were scandalous or vexatious and/or had no reasonable prospect of success. The claimant made no representations, or none sufficient to avoid that course.
The tribunal adjourned briefly to seek information about the claimant's whereabouts. Tribunal staff telephoned him, left a voicemail and emailed him, but there was no response. The hearing was then reconvened and the claims were dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance. The judgment records that the claimant may apply for reconsideration. No merits findings or remedy award were made.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract | Dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Disability discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | Disability | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 47 because of the claimant's non-attendance; no merits findings were made. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 47
- no reasonable prospect of success
- scandalous or vexatious
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.
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.