Case 2411602/2023 · Employment Tribunal
Miss S A Marston v GeoAmey PECS UK Ltd — 2024
- Case reference
- 2411602/2023
- Decision date
- 5 June 2024
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Horne Representatives
- Venue
- Liverpool
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss S A Marston
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThis was a preliminary hearing in public on 22 May 2024 before Employment Judge Horne. The claimant did not attend and was not represented. She emailed the tribunal at 9.02am with a reason for her non-attendance, and the tribunal clerk telephoned her at 10.07am, but the call went to voicemail.
The tribunal noted that previous orders had required the claimant to provide further information in writing about her complaints and proposed amendment, but she had not done so. It considered alternatives to dismissal, including giving a further opportunity to make written representations and postponing the hearing, but concluded those steps would not assist the overriding objective because the claimant had already had a fair opportunity to engage and delay would increase without a real prospect of future engagement. The claim was therefore dismissed under Rule 47 of the Employment Tribunal Rules of Procedure 2013.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The judgment dismisses the claim at a preliminary hearing under Rule 47 after the claimant did not attend. It does not decide any substantive head of claim individually. | 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.