Case 2418123/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Miss J Rawes v Tyson Lighting Limited DISMISSAL — 2021
- Case reference
- 2418123/2020
- Decision date
- 5 July 2021
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge Holmes Dated
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Miss J Rawes
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe Tribunal recorded that the claimant, Miss J Rawes, did not attend or participate in the preliminary hearing on 17 June 2021. Orders were sent to the parties on 5 July 2021 warning that the Tribunal was considering dismissal under rule 47 because of that non-participation.
The Employment Judge gave the claimant an opportunity to explain her absence, noting that she had applied for a postponement and that there had been issues with the telephone number provided to the parties. The Tribunal said it was unclear whether she had tried to join and encountered difficulties, and allowed time for an explanation in the interests of justice.
The claimant was required to provide that explanation by 16 July 2021, but did not do so. As at 21 July 2021, she still had not provided any explanation. The Tribunal therefore dismissed her claims under rule 47 for non-attendance, and the preliminary hearing listed for 16 September 2021 was cancelled. No merits findings or remedy awards were made.
Claims and outcomes
2 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex discrimination | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to provide an explanation for non-attendance/non-participation at the preliminary hearing on 17 June 2021 and did not respond by 16 July 2021. | Dismissed | Sex | — |
| Unfair dismissal | Dismissed under rule 47 after the claimant failed to provide an explanation for non-attendance/non-participation at the preliminary hearing on 17 June 2021 and did not respond by 16 July 2021. | Dismissed | — | — |
Legal tests applied
1 reference- rule 47
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.