Case 2410102/2022 · Employment Tribunal
Claimant v L Anderson — 2023
- Case reference
- 2410102/2022
- Decision date
- 28 March 2023
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Martin Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Claimant
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningEmployment Judge Martin dealt with the case at a telephone preliminary hearing on 22 March 2023. Neither party attended or was represented. The judgment records that the claimant’s claims were all dismissed under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
The reason given was procedural rather than substantive. The tribunal found that the claimant was not actively pursuing his claims because he failed to attend the preliminary hearing and provided no explanation for his non-attendance. On that basis, the tribunal dismissed all claims against the respondent, Lee Anderson.
No findings were made on the merits of the underlying claims, and no remedy was awarded. The judgment was signed on 23 March 2023 and sent to the parties on 28 March 2023.
Claims and outcomes
3 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Religion or belief discrimination | Dismissed under Rule 37 because the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the preliminary hearing without explanation. | Dismissed | Religion or belief | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under Rule 37 because the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the preliminary hearing without explanation. | Dismissed | — | — |
| Unlawful deduction from wages | Dismissed under Rule 37 because the claimant was not actively pursuing the claim and did not attend the preliminary hearing without explanation. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- Rule 37 of Schedule 1 of the Employment Tribunal 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.